-I

STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM AND

DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH AFRICA,
A WORLD CONCERN

A Collection of Articles and Speeches

by

Enuga S. Reddy
-I
2

CONTENTS

United Nations Action against Apartheid

International Action against Apartheid: some observations on the

situation in South Africa and possible action by the United Nations
Paper circulated to members of the Special Committee against Apartheid, September 1985

Public Action against Apartheid

Speech in the Swedish People’s Parliament against Apartheid, February 22, 1986

International Student Action in Solidarity with the Students of

Southern Africa
Paper presented to the International Student Conference in Solidarity with the Struggle of the
Students in Southern Africa, London, July 31- August 3, 1987.

Parliaments and the Struggle against Apartheid

Published by Times of India in August 1987 on the eve of a preparatory meeting for world
conference of parliamentarians against apartheid

Media and Southern African Struggle

Paper presented to the Seminar on the Role of the Latin American and Caribbean Media in the
International Campaign against Apartheid, Lima, Peru, March 7-9, 1988

United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid – 25 years

Speech at meeting of Special Committee on its 25th anniversary, May 6.1988

Free Nelson Mandela: An Account of the Campaign to Free Nelson

Mandela and All Other Political Prisoners in South Africa
Article written in connection with the observance of the 70th birthday of Nelson Mandela, July
1988

Education against Apartheid: Some Observations

Paper presented to the International NGO Seminar on Education against Apartheid, Palais des
Nations, Geneva, September 4-6, 1989

Prerequisites for a peaceful Solution in South Africa

Speech in the Ad Hoc Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, 16th special session,
December 13, 1989

Some Observations on International Educational Assistance to South

Africans
Paper presented to the Follow-up Conference on International Educational Assistance to
Disadvantaged South Africans, United Nations, New York, 8-9 September 1992
-I
3

United Nations and Anti-Apartheid Movements

Twenty Years of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement

Speech at Conference in London on the twentieth anniversary of the Movement,
June 26, 1979

Strategy for International Action in Support of the Liberation Struggle

in South Africa: Role of Cooperation between the UN Special
Committee against Apartheid and the Anti-Apartheid Movements
Paper presented to a meeting of the UN Special Committee against Apartheid,
November 25, 1985

Anti-Apartheid Movement and the United Nations: Partners in the

International Campaign against Apartheid, June 26, 1999
1
Paper presented to the Symposium on “The Anti-Apartheid Movement: a 40-year Perspective,”
London, June 26, 1999

United Nations and the International Campaign against Apartheid:

Partners in the struggle for Liberation
Paper presented to the “Conference on International Anti-Apartheid Movements in South Africa’s
Freedom Struggle: Lessons for Today” at International Convention Centre, Durban, October 10-
13, 2004

India’s Support to Freedom Struggle in South Africa

National Movements of India and South Africa: A Historic

Friendship
Written on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the African National Congress of South Africa,
January 8, 1987

Nehru and Africa

Published in the Nehru Centenary Volume (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, November 14,
1989) and in Sechaba, London, July 1989

Tagore and South Africa

Published in Mainstream, New Delhi, August 8, 1992

India, Britain and the Struggle against Apartheid

Lecture at the Nehru Centre, London, on August 13, 1992
-I
4

India and South Africa: Exploring New Openings

Published in Hindustan Times, New Delhi, November 26, 1993

India and South Africa: Partners in Freedom and Development

Introduction to T. G. Ramamurthi (ed.) South Africa India: Partnership in Freedom and
Development. New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations and New Age International
Publishers Limited, 1995.

Gandhi, Mandela and the Afrikaners, August 26, 1995

India and South Africa: New Challenges

Foreword to South Africa: Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Uma Shankar Jha, 1996.

India and South Africa

Dadoo Memorial Lecture, New Delhi, September 6, 1996

Tributes to Freedom Fighters

Walter Sisulu
Written for the 75th birthday of Walter Sisulu in May 1987. Published by the United Nations
Centre against Apartheid in its Notes and Documents No. 5/87.

M.P. Naicker
1
Written in April 1987 for the tenth anniversary of the death of M. P. Naicker. Published in Asian
Times, London, and Mainstream, New Delhi.

Nana Sita, Gandhian in South Africa

Distributed by Press Trust of India Features in September 1988 and published in many Indian
newspapers. Also published in Sechaba, London, August 1990.

Moulvi Ismail Ahmed Cachalia

1
Written on the occasion of his 80th birthday on December 5, 1988. Distributed by Press Trust of
India Features and published in many newspapers in India. Also in The Leader, Durban, and Asian
Times, London.

Kathy Kathrada
Written for his 60th birthday in prison on August 21, 1989. Distributed by Press Trust of India
Features and published in many Indian newspapers. Also by The Leader, Durban; and by Asian
Times and Caribbean Times, London.
-I
5

Sam Ramsamy and others who fought apartheid sport, January 1998
Written for the 60th birthday of Sam Ramsamy. Published in The Leader, Durban, January 23,
1998

Speeches

Statement at a Hearing on South Africa, Copenhagen, March 18, 1978

Speech at the International Student Conference in Solidarity

with the Struggle of the Students of Southern Africa, London,
August 1,1987

Speech at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, January 27,

1983

Speech at National Student Anti-Apartheid Convention, Sheffield,

January 19, 1986

Speech at the Meeting of the Anti-Apartheid Organization of Trinidad

and Tobago, March 21, 1986

Other

Some Notes on South Africa and the “Cold War”, 1953

Nordic Contribution to the Struggle against Apartheid: Its Evolution
and Significance
Based on speech at the Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, February 19, 1986
-I
6

UNITED NATIONS ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID

-I
7

INTERNATIONAL ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID (1985)1

Some observations on the situation in South

Africa and possible action by the United Nations

SUMMARY

The mass upsurge of the people of South Africa and the crisis of the racist regime
provide an opportunity for the international community to play an important role
in promoting a just and lasting solution. Unless concerted, effective and
purposeful action is taken, however, another opportunity will be lost and the
danger of a bloodbath may, in fact, increase.

The Western governments, in particular, bear a grave responsibility. It is

encouraging that, in the past few months, several Western governments,
responding to public opinion in their countries, have been taking significant
actions to demonstrate their concern. But uneven and uncoordinated actions at the
national level are inadequate. There should be a clear definition of objectives and
concerted action by all States.

The first priority is the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners,
ending of the State of Emergency and the withdrawal of treason trials, to be
followed by negotiations between the regime and the leaders of the struggle on
the modalities for the total elimination of apartheid and the establishment of a
democratic, non-racial system. Unilateral “reforms” or concessions by the racist
regime are of little relevance.

The United Nations, despite its inadequacies, remains the best instrument for
concerted international action. It has played a significant role in sustaining the
morale of the oppressed people of South Africa and in promoting international
support to their legitimate struggle.

The lines of action developed by the United Nations remain valid. While effective
pressure on the racist regime is essential, sanctions alone cannot produce a
solution. They can only encourage and assist the efforts of the South African
people. Direct assistance to the victims of apartheid and the struggle against
apartheid is equally important.

United Nations action has so far been hampered by the fact that Chapter VII of
the Charter has been inoperative. As a result, hardly any Western country has
taken significant action in the important fields of trade and transport.

There is an urgent need for serious discussion by Member States on concerted

action at a new level. The agenda of consultations should include the following:

(a) Means to persuade the major Western Powers - particularly the

United Kingdom and the United States - to agree to a determination by
the Security Council that the situation in South Africa constitutes a threat

1
This paper was circulated privately in September 1985, and was not published.
-I
8

to international peace and security;

(b) Specific sanctions in the fields of investment, trade and transport;

(C) Assistance programmes;

(d) Means to enable United Nations bodies to respond effectively to

the fast-changing situation in South Africa.

***
Introduction

The upsurge of the black majority in South Africa against the abominable system
of apartheid has become one of the major events on the international scene. The
courage and determination of the people - workers and students, women and
children, and religious personalities - has surpassed all expectations.

The racist regime has been unable to control the situation, despite the immense
military power it has built up since 1960 and the brutality with which it has tried
to suppress the resistance. It has felt obliged to promise major “reforms” - on
citizenship and pass laws, for instance.

The black people have shattered the predictions of so-called experts last year that
the Nkomati accord and other developments would make the national liberation
movement impotent. They have disproved the assessment of analysts in
Washington that white domination in South Africa would continue into the
twenty-first century.

They have forced major financial institutions in the West to stop credits to South
Africa. (These institutions are no more anxious to invest in that country to help
the poor blacks!).

The situation in South Africa has become an issue of national concern in many
Western countries. Governments which have long resisted sanctions against South
Africa have felt obliged to take action and public opinion demands more.

The struggle of the South African people and the development of public opinion
in the West has created an unrivalled opportunity to promote the initiation of an
irreversible process for the elimination of apartheid and the establishment of a
non-racial democratic society in South Africa.

The situation demands, however, more than isolated actions by governments and
organisations. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated strategy, under the
auspices of the United Nations, to ensure a just and lasting solution without undue
loss of life and suffering.

Some Basic Facts

It is necessary to emphasise some features of the growing confrontation in South

Africa.
-I
9

First, the raison d'etre of successive governments in South Africa has been to
consolidate and perpetuate white domination by resisting or diverting
international opinion and the “winds of change.”

They have tried to impose a final solution” or create a fait accompli by a plethora
of laws for racial segregation, forced removals of millions of black people and the
establishment of bantustans. The purpose was to turn most of South Africa into a
country with a white majority while seemingly giving freedom to Africans in
scattered reserves and obliging them to provide cheap labour as migrant workers
without any political rights.

The successive regimes have not hesitated to resort to ever more ruthless
repression to impose this solution. They have also tried, not too successfully, to
divide black opposition by building up tribal chiefs dependent on the white rulers.
Some of these chiefs, now in power in bantustans, have been most savage in
violence against the black people.

To divert attention and assuage international opinion, the minority regimes have
from time to time announced so-called reforms. These reforms have always been
manoeuvres to give an appearance of mitigation of oppression while proceeding
with dispossession of the black people. They have always been accompanied by
greater repression against the opponents of apartheid. There has never been a let-
up in the expansion of the military-repressive apparatus.

Second, the minority regimes have consistently refused to talk to, much less
negotiate with, the leaders of the movement of the black people for freedom, even
with the late Chief Albert Luthuli when the African National Congress was sworn
to non-violence.

In recent years, to deceive world opinion, they pretend to consult with black
“leaders" chosen by them - and detested or disowned by the people - like the tribal
chiefs, heads of bantustans and members of urban councils. They have
occasionally agreed to meet church leaders. But it is always the master listening to
grievances or offering some crumbs. The fundamental issues of freedom and
equality were always “non-negotiable.”

Third, the minority regimes have repeatedly used repression and violence to
suppress peaceful movements whenever they began to pose a challenge - for
instance, the African National Congress in the 1950s, the Pan Africanist Congress
-I
10

in 1960, the black consciousness movement in the 1970s and the United
Democratic Front in the 1980s.

They have also tried to suppress white dissent and any dialogue or contact
between whites and the liberation movements.

The issue for them was not violence or non-violence. Their concern was to
suppress any movement which threatens white domination.

Fourth, despite all the inhumanity of the regime, the liberation movement has
consistently espoused the ideal of a non-racial society in the interests of all the
people of South Africa. It has tried its utmost to avoid a black-white racial
conflict.

Thus, decades of experience has shown that the racist white minority regime in
South Africa cannot be the moving force for peaceful change to a democratic
society in South Africa. It can, at best, move towards a camouflaged and more
sophisticated system of racist domination, and become even more repressive
against the genuine leaders of the liberation struggle.

A lasting solution can only be obtained by exerting sufficient international

pressure to convince the racist regime and its supporters that white domination
must come to an end; assisting, by all appropriate means, the legitimate struggle
of the black majority for full equality; and promoting negotiations, through a
national convention of representatives of all the people or other means, on the
future of the country.

This has always been the approach of the United Nations.

Role of the United Nations

Despite its limitations, the United Nations has played a positive and significant
role in its consideration of the situation in South Africa during the past four
decades.

Contrary to the propaganda of the Pretoria regime, and some of its friends, it has
been a force for sanity and conciliation.

While totally opposed to apartheid, it has always recognised that a solution will
need to be negotiated by the South African people themselves, taking into account
-I
11

the legitimate interests of all segments of the population. It has not seen the
problem in terms of a black-white conflict, but sought to enable all the people of
South Africa to rid themselves of racist tyranny and establish a non-racial
democratic State.

It has helped sustain the morale of the oppressed people of South Africa and their
liberation movements during all the difficulties and reverses they faced, and
helped promote moral and material assistance to them in their struggle for
freedom.

It has, by persistent effort, helped develop public opinion and public movements
in support of the liberation struggle.

It has not been able to take binding measures to exert pressure on the racist
regime - except for the mandatory arms embargo - because of the vetoes of the
major Western Powers against any other sanctions. But partly because of the
efforts of the United Nations, a substantial majority of Western countries now
support sanctions against South Africa. They were reluctant for many years to
take national measures in the absence of binding Security Council decisions, but
in the past year several Western countries were persuaded to take such measures,
however limited.

The United Nations may, in fact, feel gratified that it has contributed to the
creation of a situation in which a solution of the problem is at last in sight. But
with the pace of developments in South Africa, it faces a new challenge.

The United Nations is the most appropriate forum for international agreement on
the objectives and on co-ordinated international action. Without such co-
ordination, measures by individual States may have little practical effect.
Unilateral initiatives by major Western Powers, in the light of their so-called
interests, may create confusion and complications.

The United Nations also provides a forum for continuous contact with the leaders
of the black majority in South Africa. It can promote widest public understanding
and support which are crucial for the success of international efforts. It can
provide good offices for a dialogue between the saner leaders in the white
community in South Africa and the leaders of the liberation struggle.

Appeasement of Racists - the Road to Disaster

-I
12

The major Western Powers - influenced by their fast-growing economic interests

under apartheid or so-called strategic considerations - supported neither effective
pressure on the Pretoria regime nor assistance to the struggle of the oppressed
people.

Their policies were predicated on the assumption that the Pretoria regime was too
powerful and too intransigent for justice to triumph in the foreseeable future.
Concerned mainly at the excesses of the racist regime which created difficulties
for them, they espoused “white-led change,” paying greater attention to the
possibilities of the racist regime than to the feelings of the black majority. This
approach led to the so-called policy of “constructive engagement" and its variants.

In 1984, both the Botha regime and the major Western Powers prepared to
celebrate the success of the "engagement."

The “peace process” in the region was moving forward. The Botha regime had
announced a series of “reforms” and even enacted a new constitution which was
welcomed by the United States as a step in the right direction.

But the day when that constitution was enforced saw the beginning of a national
uprising of unprecedented scope. The “peace process” and the “reform process”
were seen by the black majority as the implementation of the final solution to
dispossess the African majority.

The subsequent developments have daily confirmed that the policies of the major
Western Powers were ill-conceived. It is to be hoped that they will be more
inclined, in the light of this experience, to try to harmonise their policies with
those of the great majority of States. The United States, in particular, must be
assisted to reassess its role, for it can make a vital contribution to United Nations
efforts.

(I recall that in 1963, President John F. Kennedy recognised that the situation in
South Africa was a threat to international peace. The United States imposed an
arms embargo against South Africa and encouraged other Western Governments
to take similar action. The United States Representative, Governor Adlai
Stevenson, assured the Special Committee against Apartheid of cooperation. Such
an approach by the United States at this time would enormously advance the
prospects for a just solution in South Africa).

The Present Challenge

-I
13

The United Nations must give urgent attention to the new situation in South
Africa, define the objectives for the present stage, and agree on concerted
international action towards that end. While the general lines of action pursued so
far remain valid, there is a need for a sense of urgency and emphasis on means to
ensure that effective measures are universally applied.

Objectives

The primary objective is to enable the South African people, through a process of
negotiation, to dismantle and eliminate the apartheid system and establish a non-
racial democratic society. In the process, the independence of Namibia and the
security of neighbouring States should be assured.

The modalities for the transformation of society, as well as transitional measures

and any special arrangements to meet the legitimate interests or fears of any
segment of the population, are a matter for the South African people to decide.

A negotiated settlement requires, as an indispensable prerequisite, the ending of

the State of Emergency and all repressive measures, the release of Nelson
Mandela and all other political prisoners, a general amnesty and an abrogation of
the bans on the liberation movements and other organisations.

The leaders of the freedom movement must be enabled to play a key role in the
process of change until democratic elections can be organised to choose a national
convention or constituent assembly or other appropriate body.

The black people cannot be expected to have any confidence in “white-led

change,” or so-called reforms under the aegis of the present regime.

At the same time, there is reason for confidence that the leaders
of the liberation struggle will demonstrate statesmanship, and that with the
certainty of the demise of racist tyranny, a spirit of conciliation will predominate.

International Action

The first priority is to exert all possible influence on the major Western Powers -
particularly the United Kingdom and the United States - to secure a determination
by the Security Council that the situation in South Africa constitutes a threat to
-I
14

international peace and security, so that the provisions of Chapter VII of the
Charter can be operative.

Such a determination will make possible universal rather than isolated action, and
consideration of sanctions in the fields of trade and transportation - such as
prohibition of export of "dual purpose equipment,” oil and computers and import
of krugerrands and coal.

The present attitude of the major Western Powers is unreasonable and an abuse of
their authority. They agreed, as long ago as 1963, that the situation was seriously
disturbing international peace, but have since arbitrarily prevented the recognition
of a clear and present threat to peace or breach of peace, though they will continue
to have the right of veto on any specific proposals for sanctions.

Of great importance at this time is increased assistance to the oppressed people of

South Africa and their liberation movements. This matter needs urgent and
serious consideration; at a time when the needs have greatly increased,
contributions to the United Nations funds for assistance have stagnated.

The racist regime can be expected to retaliate against neighbouring African States.
Means to prevent such retaliation and assist the African States will need to be
considered.

Arrangements will also need to be considered to ensure that the United Nations is
able effectively to monitor the implementation of its decisions and respond to the
fast-changing situation.

Consultations

The effective implementation of such a strategy requires extensive consultation

among Member States. It is hoped that the Special Committee against Apartheid,
the frontline States in Africa, as well as Nordic and other Western States
committed to this strategy, will take the lead in ensuring such consultations.

It may be recalled that at the last session of the General Assembly in 1984, the
Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid - Major-General J.N.
Garba of Nigeria - together with the Permanent Representatives of Norway and
Sweden, initiated consultations among a number of delegations in order to
respond to the developing crisis in South Africa. They resulted in a resolution on
“concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid”, adopted by an
-I
15

overwhelming majority of votes, including those of a substantial majority of

Western States.

That resolution, and the consultations which accompanied it, have helped in
persuading several Western States to decide on national sanctions against South
Africa, even if very limited. The process was accelerated after the declaration of
the State of Emergency in South Africa in July when the Security Council, in a
non-binding resolution proposed by France and Denmark, called for such
measures.

The consultations required at present are for stronger measures, universally

applied. They will need to involve not only governments already committed to
sanctions, but the major Western Powers which have so far opposed and blocked
sanctions.

There has been little meaningful dialogue between these major Western Powers
and other States for many years, as the former were stubborn in pursuit of their
real or supposed interests. It is to be hoped that they will be persuaded by the
developments in South Africa, the failure of their approaches and public opinion
in their countries to join in purposeful consultations toward a common United
Nations strategy.
-I
16

PUBLIC ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID2

I appreciate greatly this opportunity to make a few initial remarks on public action
against apartheid.

I believe that my own principal contribution in the United Nations, as the official
in charge of action against apartheid from 1963 to 1984, was in encouraging,
promoting and assisting, in appropriate ways, the actions of anti-apartheid
movements and other nongovernmental organisations, as well as individuals, in
campaigns and actions against apartheid and in support of the struggle for
liberation in south Africa.

The actions we took with respect to apartheid set precedents which were followed
by other United Nations bodies on major issues on which public understanding
and support was essential for the effectiveness of the United Nations.

The United Nations began dissemination of information on apartheid in 1963,

expanded it in 1965, decided on an active “international campaign against
apartheid” in 1966 and called for an “international mobilisation against apartheid”
in 1977. The programmes of action against apartheid, endorsed by the General
Assembly in 1976 and 1983, gave special attention to public action and the
relevant proposals were largely formulated by anti-apartheid movements
themselves.

The effort to reach the public, especially in the Western countries, became crucial
in 1965 when, after the voluntary arms embargoes by the United States and the
United Kingdom, the major Western Powers began to resist any meaningful
action against the apartheid regime. The Security Council was paralysed by vetoes
or threats of vetoes - and did not even discuss the report submitted by its own
Expert Committee in 1965 on sanctions against South Africa - and the smaller
Western countries were unwilling to impose any sanctions against the South
African regime in the absence of a binding decision by the Security Council.

Our only recourse was to approach public opinion and public organizations in the
Western countries.

2
Speech in Commission 6 of the Swedish People’s Parliament against Apartheid, February 22,
1986. The Commission dealt with the theme “No collaboration with apartheid - creating public
opinion, culture and sport."
-I
17

Already apartheid had outraged, and the freedom struggle in South Africa had
inspired, many people in Western countries; trade unions, churches, student and
youth groups and other organizations had been pressing for national and
international action; the Defence and Aid Fund had been established in Britain
and the American Committee on Africa in the United States during the Defiance
Campaign in South Africa in 1952; and the boycott movement, launched in
Britain in 1959, spread widely after the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, leading to
the establishment of anti-apartheid movements in Britain, Ireland and the Nordic
countries.

It was largely due to the efforts of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and all its
friends that the Labour Party Government in Britain imposed an arms embargo
against South Africa in 1964. It was also due to the efforts of the anti-apartheid
movements and committed governments that South Africa was forced to
withdraw from the Commonwealth in 1961 and excluded from the Olympic
Games from 1963.

The United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid which was established
in 1963 and its Secretariat arm - which later became the Centre against Apartheid
- maintained close contact with the anti-apartheid movements and other
committed organizations with the encouragement of the liberation movement. The
representatives of these non-governmental organizations were not treated as mere
petitioners but as partners in action. Many resolutions in the United Nations
resulted from their suggestions and requests. A series of conferences and seminars
- which brought together representatives of United Nations bodies, governments,
liberation movements, and anti-apartheid groups - led to coordinated actions.

Anti-apartheid movements were soon established in practically all Western

countries. They were often small opposition groups at inception, and benefited
greatly from the moral support of the United Nations. Apartheid became a
national issue in several countries.

We felt at first that the main contribution of anti-apartheid movements was to

build up national public opinion in order to persuade their governments to co-
operate with the United Nations in action against apartheid. But experience has
shown that their role and significance is much wider.

They organised boycotts and sanctions against apartheid by the public. They
promoted action by major public organizations and institutions, by
Parliamentarians and by local authorities. The recent surge of action by hundreds
-I
18

of cities and other local authorities in Western countries is unprecedented on any

international issue.

The most effective pressure against the apartheid regime last year - the suspension
of loans to South Africa by major Western banks - was essentially the result of
actions by students, churches, trade unions and local authorities over the years.

The anti-apartheid groups have provided, through public collections, substantial

assistance to the victims of apartheid and the liberation movements. They have
been able to send the assistance inside South Africa despite bans and harassment
by the regime and to respond to the needs of liberation movements not covered by
governmental assistance.

When governments took limited actions, they helped sustain the actions and
prepare the ground for stronger actions.

The vigilance and support of the anti-apartheid movements has been very
important for the implementation of United Nations decisions - as in the case of
sanctions against Southern Rhodesia and the arms embargo against South Africa.

They have organised international campaigns on many aspects of apartheid. The

Mandela campaign, for instance, is of tremendous scope and significance.

The sports boycott has involved millions of people - sportspersons, fans and
others - around the world. The cultural boycott is assuming similar scope,
especially as musicians, artists and writers not only boycott South Africa but
devote their talents to reach millions of people in the rest of the world with their
message.

People hesitate to refer to the achievements of anti-apartheid campaigns since the

oppression in South Africa continued to worsen - but we need to recognise and
assess the results of the work in order to go forward.

In 1963, not a single Western government supported sanctions against South

Africa. Now the majority of Western governments not only favour sanctions but
have taken significant, though limited, measures. Even the major Powers which
oppose sanctions have been obliged to take some action.
-I
19

The British Government was obliged to terminate the only military agreement to
which South Africa was a party and the only mandatory arms embargo by the
United Nations is against South Africa.

The apartheid regime is increasingly isolated in many fields.

Above all, I think that anti-apartheid groups have helped develop public
understanding of the liberation struggle in South Africa so that the propaganda by
the apartheid regime that the liberation movement is terrorist, that the violence is
due to fratricidal warfare among blacks and so on has not had the effect that it
hoped for.

People of varied racial origins and ideological persuasions have participated in the
anti-apartheid movement and rebuffed those who have tried to perpetuate
apartheid by fanning racial prejudice and utilising the “cold war.” This movement
reaffirms our faith in humanity and reinforces the faith of the South African
people in a truly non-racial society. It has also had a very healthy impact on the
climate of opinion in Western countries.

I must pay tribute to the leaders, members and supporters of the anti-apartheid
movement for the enormous sacrifices they have made in the long struggle.

Hundreds of people went to jail in Australia in 1971 in the demonstrations against

the South African rugby tour and two thousand were arrested in New Zealand in
1981. Three thousand people courted imprisonment in the Free South Africa
movement in the United States since November 1984, and many thousands in the
British anti-apartheid campaigns. Hundreds, if not thousands, were injured in
demonstrations or sacrificed their careers. Many sportspersons and musicians
have rejected fabulous offers of money - in some cases, millions of dollars - from
apartheid because of their convictions.

I have devoted my remarks mainly to the past and will be very brief as regards
action in the future since participants will no doubt have valuable suggestions.

The purpose of anti-apartheid activity is no more a mere dissociation from evil or

condemnation of injustice or even an expression of human solidarity. It is to assist
the liberation movement, by all appropriate means, in this crucial phase of the
struggle to destroy apartheid and build a non-racial society. Our programmes will
need to be determined in the light of the assessments and requests by the
liberation movement.
-I
20

It is now clear that apartheid is doomed and is dying. Efforts are being made,
however, to enable racist domination somehow to survive into the twenty-first
century and even to assist the apartheid regime to dominate the whole of southern
Africa. The moves to sow divisions among the oppressed people in South Africa
and to resurrect UNITA to act as a crutch for apartheid are dangerous, even
though all efforts to keep apartheid alive through artificial respiration are doomed
to failure. There is a grave danger of continued killing of the people in South
Africa and escalation of aggression against neighbouring African States.

The need for decisive action to destroy apartheid is more urgent than ever.

It is useless to try to persuade the apartheid regime to reform and any changes it
initiates are at best irrelevant. Action must be focussed on the few major Powers
which are following a disastrous policy.

At the same time, there must be continued and increasing effort to see that all
other States impose sanctions against apartheid and support the liberation
movement. Many of them have not even implemented the very limited measures
announced by the European Communities and the Commonwealth last September
and October.

There must be a greater effort to reach the masses of people. The musicians and
artists have begun to help in this respect. Prominent sportsmen, writers and others
should also be encouraged to participate actively in the anti-apartheid campaigns.

There must be greater consultation among anti-apartheid organizations to

internationalise the campaigns which are now confined to the national level. I
have in mind particularly the campaign for people’s sanctions against apartheid
which is most timely and crucial.

I would also like to emphasise that in all campaigns, the issue of Namibian
independence should always be linked with the liberation of South Africa.

I was happy that the Nordic Governments decided last October not only to take
certain actions but to encourage action by local authorities in their countries and
by other governments. The government of Canada announced that it would
encourage action by local authorities, non-governmental organizations and
individuals.
-I
21

I hope it will be possible to strengthen cooperation of anti-apartheid movements

and other committed organizations with the United Nations system, the Non-
aligned Movement and the Organisation of African Unity, as well as many
individual governments in all regions, so as to ensure that the level of solidarity
action matches the present stage of the struggle in South Africa and Namibia and
secures the liberation of those nations without further delay.
-I
22

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ACTION IN SOLIDARITY

WITH THE STUDENTS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA3

Students and youth have played a significant role, often as the vanguard, in the
liberation struggle in South Africa.

The ANC Youth League, founded in April 1944, played a key role in
transforming the African National Congress into a mass organisation committed
to the total eradication of racism and full equality for all the people of the country,
rather than mere amelioration of the oppression of the black majority, and in
promoting militant mass action to attain the objective. Three of the founding
members of that League - Walter Sisulu, Oliver Tambo and Nelson Mandela -
continue to lead the movement for liberation, reminding us of the long and
difficult struggle in that country. Many of the leaders of the liberation movement
during the past forty years have come from the ranks of the ANC Youth League,
the Youth Leagues of the Indian Congresses (which emerged from the Indian
passive resistance campaign of 1946-48), and other youth and student
organisations.

The resistance against the Bantu Education Act of 1954 and the subsequent
measures for segregation in universities, including protests at the Universities of
Cape Town, Witwatersrand and Natal, are an important part of the liberation
struggle. The National Union of South African Students helped keep alive the
spirit of resistance when the liberation movements were struggling to recover
from the massive repression of 1962-64 - and became the target of threats and
intimidation by the Vorster regime. The University Christian Movement also
played a significant role in the 1960s.

From the late 1960s, black students played a crucial role in uniting all the black
people against apartheid and its collaborators - and helped bring about the renewal
of mass resistance with greater strength than ever before.

The role of students in the period 1976-1980, following the Soweto massacre,
when thousands were killed and injured, defying terror and death, is one of the
epics of student struggle for freedom. Thousands of students then escaped from

3
Paper presented to the International Student Conference in Solidarity with the Struggle of the
Students in Southern Africa, organised by the United Nations Special Committee against
Apartheid in co-operation with the British Anti-Apartheid Movement and the National Union of
Students of the United Kingdom, at Goldsmith College, London, July 31- August 3, 1987.
-I
23

the country to join the freedom fighters, enabling the initiation and development
of a new phase of armed struggle.

Mass action by students, in which almost a million students at all levels

participated, contributed greatly to the boycott of the diabolic constitution of
1984, the transformation of African townships into fortresses of resistance, and
the revolutionary upsurge which began in 1984. The apartheid regime felt obliged
in 1984 to send troops into African townships and one of their primary objectives
was to intimidate students and force them to return to schools.

Since then, under conditions of extreme repression and brutality, students and
youth have kept up resistance, even with the leaders forced to go underground and
several killed by vigilantes. Resistance spread more widely at high school level
and below, and many thousands of juveniles have suffered detention and torture.
Students and youth are thus playing a significant role in armed struggle as well as
in mass resistance. From their ranks have come many martyrs.

Students and youth have, of course, played a significant role in many national
liberation movements around the world and in some cases, student action was
crucial in ending colonial oppression or overthrowing corrupt dictatorial regimes.
The courage and sacrifice of students in South Africa stands comparison with that
in other countries. If their cause has not triumphed, it is because of the powerful
and unscrupulous forces, in South Africa and internationally, arrayed against the
South African liberation movement. That is why international solidarity with the
struggle of students and youth in South Africa - and with the national liberation
struggle of which it is a part - is of utmost importance.

This applies equally to Namibia where students have played and are playing a
heroic role in the liberation struggle.

Given the nature of the liberation struggle in southern Africa and the forces
ranged against it, solidarity cannot be confined to mere moral support. It must, on
the one hand, seek to confront those who support or reinforce apartheid, in order
to ensure the total isolation of the apartheid regime and its allies; and, on the other
hand, provide all necessary assistance to those struggling for freedom. Students
should not only mobilise for action on the campuses, but should promote action
by all the people in their communities and countries. While students in countries
which collaborate with the apartheid regime have a special role, students in
African, Non-aligned and other countries too have their own responsibilities.
-I
24

Student organisations must develop and preserve broadest unity in anti-apartheid

action in support of the united resistance by the oppressed people of South Africa,
and overcome all moves to divide their ranks.

Solidarity is not only a duty to the students and people of South Africa and
Namibia who are the victims of ghastly repression, violence and terrorism by a
racist regime and its vigilantes, nor merely a duty towards the students and people
of frontline States which are victims of aggression and subversion.

It is support to Africa which has emerged from centuries of humiliation and seeks
the total emancipation of the Continent. It is an act of loyalty to the United
Nations and its purposes, and a contribution to the maintenance of international
peace and security. It is, moreover, action to rid other societies of racism and help
build a new order of genuine international co-operation.

A Brief Review of International Student Action

International student action in support of the freedom movement in South Africa

began in 1946 with the initiation of mass action against racial discrimination in
South Africa.4

In June 1946, the Indian community in South Africa launched a passive resistance
campaign against the "Ghetto Act" in which over two thousand men and women -
including many students - were to court imprisonment before the suspension of
the campaign in June 1948. Many resisters were brutally beaten up by vigilantes
and several juveniles were sentenced to whipping. The government of India broke
trade relations with South Africa and protested to the United Nations so that the
situation in South Africa became a matter of international concern.

Meanwhile, in August 1946, the African mineworkers` strike was suppressed with
utmost brutality and a number of miners were massacred. African opinion began
to favour militant action against racist oppression.

4
Earlier there had been expressions of concern and sporadic actions. In India, where South
African racism had become a national issue from the beginning of the century because of
humiliating measures against people of Indian origin and the Satyagraha led by Mahatma Gandhi,
students held protest meetings in 1913 and collected funds to support the struggle in South Africa.
The ANC delegations and representatives visiting Britain and the United States in the years after
power was transferred to the white minority in South Africa in 1910 addressed student gatherings.
The radical student movement in the 1930s showed concern over the situation in South Africa.
-I
25

African and Indian organisations decided to co-operate in a common struggle and

to build a wider unity. They agreed to fight for full equality, universal franchise
and a democratic State rather than merely for petty concessions. India’s initiative
in the United Nations, and the support it received from a great majority of
governments, encouraged them to seek international support and leaders of the
movement were sent abroad for that purpose.

The years 1946-1948 thus represented a turning point in the struggle for liberation
in South Africa.

Indian students took the initiative in solidarity action, because of the Indian
passive resistance campaign. But following the lead of the Indian leaders in South
Africa and of the government of India, they saw the Indian passive resistance as
part of a wider struggle and denounced all racist oppression in South Africa and
the moves of the South African regime to annex South West Africa (now
Namibia).

In December 1946, during the United Nations consideration of the Indian

complaint, Indian students in New York joined a protest demonstration at the
South African Consulate-General.5

On December 8, 1946, Indian students in London organised a demonstration in

Trafalgar Square in support of the Passive Resistance Campaign. Among the
speakers at the demonstration were representatives of the National Union of
Students, the University Labour Federation and the West African Students`
Union.

Students at Cambridge University organised a protest demonstration in 1947,

especially as General J. C. Smuts, the South African Premier, was Chancellor of
the University.

In March 1947, the British Student Labour Federation initiated a petition in the
universities asking King George V to proclaim publicly, during his visit to South
Africa that month, that racial discrimination was not in accordance with his desire
for freedom and equal rights for all his subjects. It circulated a pamphlet entitled
The Black Side of South Africa. Meetings were held on many campuses and over
5
I was privileged to participate in this demonstration which was led by Paul Robeson and the
Council on African Affairs.
-I
26

five thousand students in 53 universities and colleges signed the petition which
was presented to Buckingham Palace.

The petition had little influence on the policy of the British government which
lent full support to South Africa at the United Nations. King George V declared at
Guild Hall in May 1947:

"... the mass of the African people have gained and are gaining
immeasurably in health, happiness and prosperity by their contact with
white civilisation, I am well assured."

But the petition could not be ignored by the South African government which felt
it necessary to issue a 19-page reply in November 1947.

Students in London protesting against oppression of black people in South Africa

picketed an exhibition on South Africa at City Art Gallery in June 1948.

In the United States, in November 1947, a meeting of students at Hunter College,

New York, heard Mr. A. I. Meer, representative of the Joint Passive Resistance
Council (of the Transvaal and Natal Indian Congresses). It supported the struggle
of the Indians in South Africa for full equality and condemned the policy of the
United States, Britain and other Powers which had voted against the Indian
resolution at the United Nations. The American Youth for Democracy, which
organised the meeting, sent a message of support to the Joint Passive Resistance
Council.

There were many student protests in India, and large meetings of students were
held during the tour of the country by Dr. Yusuf Dadoo and Dr. G. M. Naicker,
leaders of the resistance, from March to May 1947.

Efforts by African Youth to gain international support also began at this time.
V. T. Mbobo, a brilliant scholar and principal of an African school, attended the
World Youth Festival in Prague in July 1947 on behalf of the ANC Youth
League, and led the South African delegation at the Festival. He was given a
warm reception by Indian and South African students in London on the way to
Prague.

Mr. Mbobo spoke to many delegations at the Festival, gave numerous press
interviews and made radio broadcasts. He was elected to the Council of the World
Federation of Democratic Youth which organised a tour of European countries.
-I
27

His six-month tour in Europe helped develop contacts between the South African
student and youth movement and its counterparts in Europe.

Student solidarity action continued since that time internationally through the
great Defiance Campaign (1952-53), the resistance against the Bantu Education
Act (1954) and other struggles in South Africa.

The international situation, however, became complicated with the cold war and
the student movement was affected. Public action on South Africa came to be
directed mainly towards assistance to the victims of repression in South Africa
and publicity for the inhumanity of apartheid and for the non-violent resistance by
the people.

The United Nations could give no lead to public opinion. South Africa withdrew
from participation in the United Nations, leaving only token representation, and
the Western Powers exerted pressure to avoid even condemnations of apartheid in
order to persuade it to return. When South Africa returned in 1958, it was even
elected Vice-President of the General Assembly.

Student solidarity became a significant factor when a focus for public action was
provided by the appeal of Chief Albert Luthuli for a boycott of South Africa, and
even more when the Sharpeville massacre of March 21, 1960, outraged world
public opinion. Around the same time, student resistance against segregation in
the South African universities encouraged international student action.

Students and youth played a key role in initiating the boycott movement (later the
anti-apartheid movement), especially in Britain, Ireland and the Nordic countries,
and in developing mass action. The linking up of student action with anti-
apartheid groups - including leaders of trade unions and churches, Members of
Parliament etc. - helped ensure continuity of action.

Beginning with protests against the violence of apartheid and consumer boycotts
of South African products, the movement soon focussed its attention on the
campaign for sanctions against South Africa, especially after the United Nations
General Assembly called for sanctions in resolution 1761 (XVII) of November 6,
1962, which not a single Western State voted for. The sanctions campaign
increasingly brought students into confrontation with the establishments in the
Western countries which were the main trading partners of South Africa.
-I
28

Another focus for mass student action was provided by the appeal from South
Africa in 1962 for the boycott of South African sports teams and for the exclusion
of South African sports organisations from international sports bodies.

Student groups also initiated scholarships for South African students, as young
South Africans began to go into exile to escape persecution and to continue their
studies in non-segregated institutions. The first scholarship programme was
initiated by the Swedish student organisation and the late Olof Palme helped them
obtain the first government grant in 1962.

When the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid was established in
1963, and began to promote active United Nations encouragement of public
action against apartheid, the international student community had already begun
to play a significant role. The massive repression and torture in South Africa in
1963, and the efforts of leaders of the liberation struggle who had come abroad to
secure international support, helped develop action. The solidarity movement,
originating in support of the struggle in South Africa, soon extended its concern to
encompass support for the liberation struggles in Namibia, Southern Rhodesia and
the territories under Portuguese domination.

Although students have participated in all anti-apartheid campaigns, they have

played a particularly significant role in action on two issues: (a) the campaign
against collaboration with South Africa; and (b) sports and cultural boycott of
apartheid.

In both these campaigns, it was essential to fight the misleading propaganda by

the apartheid regime and its friends to confuse the basic issues, and to reject any
compromise with apartheid. It often became necessary, to be effective in some
countries, to undertake mass action with a readiness to suffer intimidation,
imprisonment and even violence.

The new spirit which spread in the student communities during the civil rights
struggle in the United States, the campaign against the war in Vietnam and the
"student revolt" of 1968, enabled students to undertake such mass action against
apartheid. In the 1970s, the militant actions of students in South Africa, the
Soweto massacre of June 16, 1976, and the indiscriminate shootings of students
which followed for several years, led to wider student solidarity action.

Some of the student campaigns in a few key countries are noted below.
-I
29

Campaigns against Economic Collaboration with South Africa

In Britain, the student campaign against the Barclays Bank, parent of the largest
bank in South Africa, was initiated in the 1960s. It was carried on year after year,
especially at the beginning of the academic year, to persuade students not to open
accounts with that bank. The number of student accounts at Barclays went down
drastically. The persistent student campaign contributed to the recent decision of
the bank to disengage from South Africa.

In the United States, students played an active role in the campaign against loans
to South Africa - initiated by a Committee of Conscience against Apartheid,
established by the American Committee on Africa and the University Christian
Movement in 1966. The campaign was directed against a group of banks which
had granted a revolving credit to South Africa, especially the Chase Manhattan
Bank and the First National City Bank.

The Committee was able to persuade a number of churches, trade unions and
individuals to withdraw deposits in the banks concerned, but these were not large
enough in relation to the enormous resources of the banks.

Mass student action - involving arrests at a demonstration organised by Students

for a Democratic Society at the headquarters of the Chase Manhattan Bank -
broke the media silence and provoked public debate.

The South African regime then found it wiser to inform the banks that it did not
seek the renewal of the revolving credit.

These initial campaigns were followed both in Britain and in the United States by
campaigns to press the universities and colleges to withdraw investments in
corporations involved in South Africa.

In Britain such investments were relatively small. But there was nonetheless great
resistance by the academic institutions. The campaign had to be carried on over
many years and student groups found it necessary to undertake militant action.
At Manchester University in 1975, students organised a "human carpet" in front
of the University Council Chamber and disrupted a Council meeting. In 1978,
students at Aberdeen University occupied the administration building for two
weeks. Students at Hull also occupied the administration building. The next year,
students at the London School of Economics organised a hunger strike.
-I
30

There was a difficult struggle at each university before the authorities could be
persuaded to divest and the crucial decision at Oxford University could only be
obtained in 1985. The sustained campaign had a great effect in making
collaboration with apartheid a major issue of public concern and in involving tens
of thousands of students in action.

In the United States, the campaign was even more difficult as the universities and
colleges, many of them private, have large investments managed by boards which
are often dominated by directors of companies involved in South Africa.

The "divestment" campaign became one of the greatest student campaigns in the
country reaching numerous campuses. Student groups organised teach-ins, sit-ins,
occupation of university buildings etc. In recent years, they built "shanties" on
campuses to draw attention to the oppression in South Africa and defended the
structures against university guards and in some cases against "conservative"
attackers. Hundreds of students were arrested in these actions.

Student actions not only obliged many academic institutions to divest but were a
significant factor in persuading state and city legislators to take action against
corporations involved in South Africa. This divestment movement was
responsible for the withdrawal of a number of United States corporations from
South Africa in the past few years.

Students have also participated in wider campaigns outside the academic

institutions against collaboration by transnational corporations and financial
institutions with apartheid and for governmental sanctions against the apartheid
regime. Student contingents have been prominent in demonstrations for that
purpose.

In the United States, the "Free South Africa Movement" was launched mainly by
Black and church groups in November 1984. It became a mass movement and
was sustained over a long period largely because of the mobilisation of the
students early in 1985. Many thousands of students participated in demonstrations
and hundreds courted imprisonment. Student actions contributed to the enactment
of partial sanctions by the United States Congress in 1986, overriding the veto by
the President.

Sports Boycott
-I
31

The British Anti-Apartheid Movement played a pioneering role in the boycott of

apartheid sport, lobbying for the exclusion of South Africa from the Olympics in
1963. Student groups soon began demonstrations against all-white South African
sports teams and this developed into a mass movement by the late 1960s.

Huge protest demonstrations were staged against the tour of the all-white South
African rugby team from November 1969 to January 1970. The first match
against Oxford University had to be cancelled because of opposition. At the
second match at Leicester, hundreds of demonstrators broke through linked-armed
policemen and interrupted the match, and that set the pattern for the entire tour.
Sports grounds looked like battlefields with the construction of barbed wire
fences and the deployment of large contingents of policemen.

Because of these protests and the even greater mobilisation for action against the
South African cricket tour, scheduled for 1970, the government was obliged to
intervene and the British Cricket Council cancelled the tour. Boycott of apartheid
sport was thus imposed by public action, largely by students and youth, six years
before the Commonwealth Gleneagles Agreement.

The sports boycott was of lesser importance in the United States as there were
much fewer sports exchanges between the United States and South Africa. There
were, however, large-scale demonstrations by students on several occasions, as
for instance during the Springbok rugby tour in 1980.

Sports boycott became a major issue in Australia and New Zealand by 1970 and
students played a key role in both countries.

The campaign in Australia followed a joint decision by the National Union of

Students in the United Kingdom and the National Union of Australian University
Students in September 1970 to co-ordinate boycott of apartheid sports teams. The
Australian Union established Halt All Racist Tours (HART) to lead the campaign
and brought into its fold leaders of trade unions and churches, sportsmen and
others.

Mass demonstrations were organised against the tour of the South African rugby
team from June 26, 1971, following protests earlier in the year against the South
African all-white Surf Lifesaving team. Playgrounds had to be protected by miles
of barbed wire and thousands of policemen. Hundreds of demonstrators were
arrested and many suffered injuries from police violence. Queensland proclaimed
a State of Emergency during the team’s ten-day tour of the province.
-I
32

Because of this public action, the Australian Cricket Board of Control cancelled a
tour by the South African cricket team scheduled for 1972. The Whitlam
government which came to power in 1972 decided that racially selected South
African teams would in future be excluded from Australia. The protests against
the rugby tour were a tremendous educational experience for the student
community and the nation, and greatly advanced the movement against racism in
the country.

In New Zealand, the campaign for the boycott of apartheid sport spread widely in
1970 with protests against the tour of the All Blacks rugby team to South Africa.
Students played a prominent role in the campaign from its inception through their
national union and Halt All Racist Tours (HALT).

Bilateral sporting contacts with New Zealand became increasingly important for
South Africa as it was being excluded from international sports. New Zealand
sports administrators, especially the Rugby Football Union, and right-wing
politicians persisted in promoting the exchanges at the risk of dividing the nation.

The 1974 Springbok rugby tour of New Zealand was stopped by the Labour
government of Norman Kirk which recognised the serious consequences of
collaboration with apartheid. But the Conservative Muldoon government which
came to power in the next elections precipitated a crisis by condoning the
exchanges, despite the Gleneagles Agreement of 1976, and by demonstrating
hostility to the anti-apartheid movement rather than to apartheid.

Almost a decade of struggle followed. It was climaxed by mass demonstrations

against Springbok rugby tour of 1981 in which two thousand people, many of
them students, were imprisoned or injured.

The struggle against collaboration with apartheid sport became an important event
in the modern history of New Zealand.

Other Campaigns and Actions

Brief mention may be made of some other campaigns and actions.

Student groups in several countries have been active in collecting funds and
supplies for assistance to the liberation movements of South Africa and Namibia.
The amount of financial and material assistance was perhaps not too large -
except in Nordic countries where student organisations could obtain government
-I
33

grants and in Socialist States - but had a great value in educating and involving
the student communities. Runs and walks for the benefit of the liberation
struggles attracted thousands of people. Student groups have also contributed to
scholarships for South African and Namibian students, and sent volunteers to
frontline States and to institutions of liberation movements.

Honouring of leaders of liberation struggles, especially Nelson Mandela, by

naming university buildings, awarding honorary degrees etc., has been an
important activity to promote the campaign for the release of political prisoners
and for publicising their cause. Students in the United Kingdom, in particular,
have been in the forefront of this campaign and many university buildings etc.,
are named after Nelson Mandela. The student campaign helped encourage many
local authorities to take similar action.

Student research has been an important aid to campaigns against apartheid.

Research by student interns of the American Committee on Africa in the mid-
sixties, for instance, greatly helped in initiating campaigns against economic
collaboration.

Students have also played a significant role in the academic and cultural boycott
of apartheid South Africa, and in securing the exclusion of South Africa from
international scientific and cultural bodies and conferences. Student boycotts of
artistes who have performed in South Africa have dissuaded many musicians and
others from visits to South Africa.

Some Organisational Matters

Close co-operation between student groups and anti-apartheid movements has

been essential to develop and sustain student action against apartheid.

In Britain, close co-operation was established between the Anti-Apartheid

Movement and the National Union of Students. The NUS/AAM network of
activists on southern Africa, initiated in 1971, consists of several hundred
members in over a hundred universities and colleges. Annual national conferences
of network members, frequent meetings at local level and mailings of network
newsletter have helped promote coordinated campaigns.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement has a student coordinator. It provides literature,

campaigning material, speakers and advice to student groups. Student anti-
-I
34

apartheid groups have been established at several universities and colleges, and
co-operate with local branches of the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

In the United States, national co-ordination between the anti-apartheid movement

and the national student organisation has not been practicable. Student anti-
apartheid groups had to be built up campus by campus in the course of
campaigns. The appointment of a student coordinator by the American Committee
on Africa, responding to the upsurge of student activity after the Soweto
massacre, has greatly helped in promoting student action and co-ordination.

It has been difficult to organise national conferences of student activists against

apartheid without external financial support. (Modest support was provided by the
United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid on two occasions). There
have, however, been many regional conferences and networking at a regional
level from time to time. The observance of "two weeks of student action against
apartheid" from Sharpeville Day to the anniversary of the assassination of the
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has been effective in ensuring co-ordinated
action.

United Nations Encouragement of Student Action

The Special Committee against Apartheid has, since its inception in 1963,
welcomed and encouraged student action against apartheid.

It issued scores of public statements and sent numerous messages in support of

student actions in many countries for divestment from South Africa, boycott of
apartheid sport etc. These have been greatly appreciated by student groups,
especially where they faced stubborn resistance and hostility from the authorities.

The Special Committee and the Centre against Apartheid have issued several
publications on student resistance in South Africa and on student solidarity
actions.

Already in the 1960s, the Special Committee granted hearings to leaders of the
Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society
and the University Christian Movement in the United States to publicise their
activities against apartheid and to express appreciation to them. The Committee
also invited national and international student organisations to many of its
conferences and special sessions.
-I
35

The World Conference for Action against Apartheid, held in Lagos in August
1977, provided an opportunity for fruitful consultations with leaders of a number
of student and youth organisations by the Chairman of the Special Committee6
and the Director of the Centre against Apartheid,7 as well as the President of the
World Conference, Major-General J. N. Garba, who was himself to become
Chairman of the Special Committee at a crucial time in March 1984. The Special
Committee then undertook active efforts, beginning with the International Anti-
Apartheid Year (1978-79), to promote conferences and meetings to enable student
activists to meet with the Special Committee, and among themselves, to consider
plans for coordinated student action at the national and international level.

In May 1978, it held a very fruitful consultation with United States student groups
active in divestment campaigns. This was the first of several such consultations -
the latest in March 1986. The Committee also assisted national conferences of
activists and sent representatives to many regional and local conferences of
students against apartheid.

The Committee co-sponsored and provided financial assistance for three

international student and youth conferences:

a. World Conference of Youth and Students in Solidarity with Peoples,

Youth and Students of Southern Africa, UNESCO House, Paris, February
19-22, 1979;

b. Consultative Meeting with Youth and Student Organisations, Sigtuna,

Sweden, May 23 and 26, 1980; and

c. International Conference of Youth and Students in Solidarity with the

Peoples, Youth and Students of Southern Africa, Luanda, November 13-
15, 1981.

It also assisted a Seminar on Youth and Student Actions against Apartheid in

South Africa, held in Hong Kong from December 28 to 30, 1982.

Other United Nations bodies and agencies - notably the United Nations Council
for Namibia and UNESCO - have also encouraged and assisted student action in
solidarity with the struggles for liberation in southern Africa.

6
Leslie O. Harriman of Nigeria
7
E. S. Reddy
-I
36

Some Observations

Student action in support of the struggles of students and people of southern

Africa has a long history and has made a very significant contribution to the
international movement of solidarity with the struggle for liberation in southern
Africa. Students have pioneered many campaigns and won notable victories
through mass action. They have been in the forefront in confronting collaborators
with apartheid, often through "direct action", and thousands of students suffered
imprisonment and made other sacrifices.

Many leaders around the world trace the beginning of their public activity to
student anti-apartheid action. Student actions have had a significant effect in
promoting anti-racist movements and changing national policies in some
countries.

It is hoped that an account of student action for freedom in southern Africa and its
repercussions can be prepared soon.

In this paper, reference could only be made to some of the most important actions
in a few countries. Significant actions have been taken by students in a number of
other Western countries such as Ireland, the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.
Many foreign students who participated in anti-apartheid actions in British and
American universities have led such action in their home countries after return. In
some African and other countries, students have combated moves to erode
opposition to apartheid by "dialogue" with the apartheid regime and other
compromises. Students in Non-aligned and Socialist States have made their
contribution, for instance through support of liberation movements and their
student leaders. In India, all the national youth and student organisations,
irrespective of ideological and party affiliations, have formed a coordinating
committee for action against apartheid.

Student action, however, has been uneven. While it has been widespread and
continuous in Britain and the United States, there has been little action in some
other countries which are also among South Africa’s major trading partners - e.g.
Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Italy and France. Student action, moreover,
has been mainly at the university and college level, and has not been developed at
high school level in most countries.
-I
37

There is always the problem of ensuring continuity in student action, especially in

support of a protracted struggle as in southern Africa, because of summer
vacations, the turnover of students and changes in student concerns.

There has also been little co-ordination in action between student communities in
Western countries and those in Non-aligned and Socialist States which have
broken relations with South Africa. Despite differences in the nature of the issues
and campaigns, greater liaison and co-operation could be helpful.

International student conferences and consultations organised or supported by the

Special Committee against Apartheid have not met the high expectations in this
regard. They have tended, to some extent, to duplicate United Nations debates.
Even when concrete decisions were taken and responsibilities assumed, there was
no follow up to ensure effective implementation.

While student groups have been effective in action against economic

collaborations with South Africa, or boycott of apartheid sport, they have not
found ways to be equally effective on some other aspects of the struggle which
require urgent attention, for instance: (a) development of clandestine collaboration
with the apartheid regime in violation of the United Nations mandatory arms
embargo against South Africa; (b) lobbying of legislatures. In the United States,
for instance, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 has been followed
by a series of legislative measures and proposals hostile to the liberation
movements and frontline States. Student activists have not found effective means
to counter such moves.

Participants at this Conference will, it is hoped, give attention to these matters and
agree on specific and effective measures for co-ordinated action as well as means
to monitor implementation.

It would perhaps be useful if the Special Committee against Apartheid were to

establish a task force on student and youth action in order to maintain constant
liaison with a small international network of student activists, especially at the
national and local level where action takes place, and to consider means to assist
meetings of student networks, to produce and distribute literature and
campaigning material specially suited to promoting student action, to publicise
student action, etc.
-I
38

Above all, it is essential to give attention to fundamental questions, as student

movements can do best, in the light of the present confrontation in southern
Africa and the imperative need for decisive action.

In the nearly forty years since apartheid was proclaimed the official policy of
racist South Africa, millions of people in South Africa and Namibia have suffered
deprivation, imprisonment, torture and even murder. Millions of people in the
frontline States - including children - have fallen victim to the depredations of the
apartheid regime.

Numerous resolutions have been adopted by the United Nations and other
organisations during this period proclaiming that apartheid is a crime and that
support to apartheid is an abetment of an international crime.

Yet, even now, powerful governments and interests continue "friendly relations"
and "business as usual" with the apartheid regime. They stubbornly oppose action
against apartheid and engage in clandestine collaboration with it. They are now
even stepping up condemnations of the great freedom movements, while
increasing support to terrorist bands in frontline States.

The heroic students of southern Africa, who are defying brutal violence by the
racist regime, as well as murders by racist vigilantes, demand and deserve
solidarity. What they need, above all, is the destruction of the bonds that have
persisted between South African racism and international interests, and this
objective is equally in the interests of other nations. But the attainment of this
objective, regrettably, seems to require a determined and uncompromising
struggle on many fronts as well as a willingness to confront powerful forces and
make sacrifices as needed.
-I
39

PARLIAMENTS AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST

APARTHEID8

The Parliamentary front has become more important than ever in the world-wide
campaign against apartheid as the major Western Powers not only continue to
block sanctions against the South African regime but are giving it comfort
through propaganda against the liberation movement, support to terrorist groups
in the frontline States and other covert operations. While action in the Western
Parliaments is crucial, Parliaments and their members can play a positive role
even in countries like India where governments are committed to the struggle
against apartheid.

The establishment of the all-party Parliamentarians for Action for Removal of

Apartheid (PARA-India) last year, and its decision to convene a global
preparatory meeting of Parliamentarians in New Delhi on August 17-18 to consult
on coordinated action and to prepare for a world conference of Parliamentarians,
is to be welcomed.9

India is an appropriate venue for launching this initiative since it was India, now
the largest democracy in the world, which initiated Parliamentary action against
racism in South Africa.

When Mahatma Gandhi began his public life as the spokesman and leader of the
Indians in South Africa against racist measures, he devoted great effort to
securing support among Members of Parliament and public figures in Britain. He
kept up regular correspondence with Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Muncherjee
Bhownaggree, who had served in the House of Commons. When he visited
London in 1906, a South African British Indian Committee (SABIC) was formed
- similar to the British Committee of the Indian National Congress - to draw
attention to the plight of Indians in South Africa and make representations to the
British government. Lord Ampthill, a former Governor of Madras, was its
Chairman and Sir Muncherjee was a member.

At the same time, Gopal Krishna Gokhale espoused the cause of the Indians in
South Africa in the Viceroy’s Executive Council in Calcutta. His energetic
campaign in the Council and outside, in support of Gandhiji, obliged the
government of India in 1911 to prohibit recruitment of Indian labour, under

8
Published by Times of India, daily, New Delhi and other cities, August 1987
9
The world conference was not held and other initiatives were taken by parliamentarians.
-I
40

indenture, for South Africa. That was the first sanction against South African
racism, half a century before the United Nations called for such action.

Leaders of the African people also began to lobby in the British Parliament,
especially after the establishment of the African National Congress in 1912. Two
years earlier, Britain had handed over power to the white settlers and the Botha-
Smuts regime began to dispossess the Africans of their land, causing enormous
suffering. The ANC sent deputations to London before and after the First World
War.

They were able to secure the support of a few Members of Parliament. In 1914,
for instance, two Liberal Members of Parliament - Sir Albert Spicer and Percy
Alden - expressed their concern in the House of Commons over the South African
Natives Land Act of 1913. In 1919, Dr. G. B. Clarke, a Liberal Member of
Parliament, arranged a meeting for Solomon T. Plaatje, the ANC representative,
with Prime Minister Lloyd George. When the colonial vote came before the
House of Commons that year, a few Members of Parliament expressed grave
concern over the racial situation in South Africa.

Sol Plaatje also met Fenner Brockway, then a journalist and a great friend of
Indian freedom, who was to become an untiring advocate of African freedom
during his long career in Parliament.

After the Second World War, when India helped internationalise the South
African issue through the United Nations, the India League in London set up a
special Southern Africa Committee to publicise the situation. Sorensen, M.P. was
its Chairman.

Action by Parliamentarians against South African racism has thus a long history,
though mainly in India and Britain. After the Sharpeville massacre of March 21,
1960, and the calls for sanctions against South Africa, it became internationally
significant.

A number of Parliament Members joined the anti-apartheid movements which

were set up in Western countries. Barbara Castle, David Steel and David Ennals
were among the early leaders of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement, as was
Robert Hughes, the present Chairman of the Movement who is attending the
Delhi meeting.
-I
41

Many Parliaments in Non-aligned Countries debated and passed legislation on

sanctions and other measures against the apartheid regime, and Members of
Parliament began to press for such action in the Western countries where the
governments were opposed to sanctions.

Though there was little progress on sanctions in Western countries for many
years, except for the arms embargo, committed Parliamentarians kept the issue
alive and built up public opinion. They were able, in several countries, to secure
recognition of the liberation movement and assistance to the victims of apartheid
and the frontline States.

In the past few years, several Western countries have imposed partial sanctions
against South Africa. In some countries, the governments have taken the lead. In
others, majorities in Parliaments have enacted legislation despite the opposition of
governments.

In the Netherlands, a group of Parliament Members from the opposition parties, as

well as from the ruling coalition, sponsored a motion in 1980 for an oil embargo
against South Africa and almost toppled the government. Though they did not
succeed at the time, the government was obliged to take some positive steps. Jan
Nico Scholten, who moved the motion, subsequently left the Christian
Democratic Party because of his support for the liberation struggle in southern
Africa and opposition to nuclear weapons, and joined the Socialist Party. He is
attending the Delhi meeting as a special invitee though not presently a Member of
Parliament.

In 1986, the Danish Parliament enacted a trade embargo against South Africa
despite the opposition of the government, with one party in the government
joining the Opposition on this issue.

Later that year, the United States Congress enacted the Comprehensive Anti-
Apartheid Act, with bipartisan support, overriding the veto of President Reagan.
The momentum has been lost, however, as the Western media have succumbed to
South African censorship. The public outrage aroused by almost daily television
coverage of police violence in South Africa has subsided. In the United States
conservatives have seized the initiative to push legislative measures against the
frontline States and the liberation movements.
-I
42

There is an urgent need for determined efforts by committed Parliamentarians to

revive Parliamentary action against apartheid. Consultations among
Parliamentarians around the world can help in this respect.

The need for such consultation was recognised in Western Europe several years
ago as governments began to cite EEC agreements as an argument against
national action for sanctions against South Africa. A Conference of West
European Parliamentarians for an Oil Embargo against South Africa was held in
Brussels in January 1981 and a conference on sanctions at The Hague in
November 1982. An Association of Western European Parliamentarians for
Action against Apartheid (AWEPAA) was established at a third conference in
Copenhagen in November 1984. AWEPAA has organised several conferences
and studies since then.

Co-ordination of Parliamentary activity is difficult because of differences in

national situations, constitutions, party alignments and traditions. But closer
liaison and exchange of experience can be helpful. Greater uniformity in
legislation, for instance, is essential to prevent evasions of sanctions.
Political parties with international affiliations can play a special role in promoting
co-ordinated action. The Conference of Socialist Parties on South Africa, held in
Arusha, Tanzania, in September 1984, with the participation of leaders of
frontline States and liberation movements, greatly helped in securing sanctions
legislation in smaller Western countries.

India, too, can play a key role in co-operation with African countries, because of
its long tradition of opposition to racism in South Africa and the all-party unity on
this issue, but only if the Parliamentarians actively follow the world-wide struggle
against apartheid, play a more active role in India and become familiar with the
alignments in each of the major Western countries.

There was a tendency among Indian Parliamentarians for many years to do little
on apartheid on the grounds that the government was pursuing the right course,
and to be satisfied with the contribution of India to African liberation. That led to
apathy among the people and the absence of public mobilisation and action. India
was overtaken by other countries and ceased to lead the anti-apartheid campaign.
The Parliamentary forum must be effectively used in India to respond to the
revolution in South Africa, to denounce the forces that continue to reinforce
apartheid, to expose attempts to undermine our sanctions and to initiate proposals
for further governmental and public action so that India will retain its leading
position.
-I
43

India’s opposition to colonialism and racism provoked Western hostility since the
early days of our independence. The apartheid regime and its powerful friends are
even now constantly trying to undermine India’s credibility. To counteract their
manoeuvres, Parliament must demonstrate that India’s initiatives against
apartheid reflect not only the convictions of the Prime Minister but also the
informed and deeply felt concern of all the political parties.

The revival of Parliamentary and public activity against apartheid since 1984, and
especially after the election of India as Chairman of the Africa Fund of the Non-
aligned Movement, has restored dynamism to India’s role in the struggle against
apartheid. The initiative of PARA in sponsoring global consultations among
Parliamentarians can add a new dimension to the struggle, and to India’s image, if
the all-party coalition will undertake the careful planning and action that is
essential.
-I
44

MEDIA AND SOUTHERN AFRICAN STRUGGLE10

Introduction

The role of the media has been important in all freedom struggles — both in
promoting the unity of the oppressed people and in securing international support.
Freedom movements have had to combat and overcome the moves of the
oppressors to curb the media in their countries and their well—financed
propaganda against those movements in other countries.

In South Africa the freedom movement has faced tremendous odds — with a
large white community poisoned by rabid racism and armed to the teeth, and the
involvement of powerful foreign economic and other interests. It attaches utmost
importance to securing support of the international public opinion. Indeed,
mobilisation of world support for effective international action against the
apartheid regime is essential to avert a ghastly conflict with an immense loss of
life.

The Pretoria regime spends annually tens of millions of dollars in public and
secret funds for its propaganda and resorts to dirty tricks with impunity. Its efforts
are supplemented by those of the South Africa Foundation, set up by South
African business interests and media, as well as by other groups. It receives
support from different quarters, including transnational corporations which profit
from apartheid, military and intelligence establishments of some Western
countries which see the white racist regime as a dependable ally and from ultra—
conservative and racist elements.

It has sought to convince Western public opinion that the African National
Congress of South Africa (ANC) is terrorist and "communist—dominated", that
the fall of the racist minority regime would lead to Soviet domination of South
Africa, endangering Western strategic and economic interests, that the racist
regime is reformist, that violence is caused by the liberation movement, that
sanctions against South Africa would hurt the blacks and retard reform, and so on.

10
Paper presented to the Seminar on the Role of the Latin American and Caribbean Media in the
International Campaign against Apartheid, Lima, Peru, March 7-9, 1988. The Seminar was
organised by the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid in co-operation with the
Government of Peru. A somewhat different version of the paper was presented earlier to a seminar
in New Delhi.
-I
45

These themes, however baseless, are openly or subtly spread by the Western
media and have required enormous efforts by the liberation movement and its
friends to counteract effectively.

The first priority of the racist regime has been to prevent sanctions by its main
trading partners. The Western media, which are themselves controlled by
transnational corporations or influenced by Governments which oppose sanctions,
have been most receptive to the propaganda of that regime. While they could not
avoid reporting on the excesses of apartheid, most of them have consistently
opposed sanctions against the racist regime. For them, the task was at best to end
some human rights violations, not the liberation of a people and the establishment
of a non—racial democratic state in South Africa.

Since 1984, however, with the unprecedented upsurge of mass resistance in South
Africa and the escalating violence and repression by the regime, wider segments
of public opinion in Western countries have begun to demand action by the
Governments. The coverage of police violence against peaceful demonstrators on
the television networks in the West has provoked outrage by millions of people,
whatever the commentaries or slants, and has helped promote international action
which, in turn, has encouraged the movement in South Africa.

To counter this, the Pretoria regime has imposed sweeping restrictions on

coverage by South African and foreign media. In November 1985, it prohibited
filming or photographing of demonstrations and police violence. Since December
1986, it has further extended the restrictions.

While media have protested the restrictions, they have not fought them nor tried
to overcome them. They go to extraordinary lengths to cover and publicise
insurgence in third world countries, but have done nothing of the kind in South
Africa. Again and again they have succumbed to the pressures of the Pretoria
regime in their anxiety to maintain correspondents in South Africa. For several
years now, the curtain of silence on Namibia has been even more complete.

This is the context in which the role of the media needs to be discussed.

Façade of a Free Press

The façade or pretence of a "free press" in South Africa, upheld in the West as a
redeeming feature of that country, has now been destroyed.
-I
46

I refer to the "façade" because the press has never been truly free in South Africa.
Just as there is a façade of parliamentary democracy (for whites only), there has
been a façade of a free press (for whites only).

The television and radio, controlled by the regime, have always been mouthpieces
of the racist ruling party.

The major newspapers have all been owned by the whites, including the mining
and banking houses and the racist political parties. A few newspapers set up by
blacks were also taken over by the white groups as they could not survive
financially without advertisements.

Already in the 1940s, the freedom movement could obtain coverage for its
activities only in the Guardian, a communist weekly. The Guardian was banned
in 1952. It reappeared under different names - Advance, New Age, Clarion Call,
Spark - but that became impossible by 1963 as all the journalists were detained,
prohibited from writing or forced into exile. A Liberal Party weekly, Contact,
which was started in the 1950s, was also forced to close down.

With the banning of the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC)
in 1960, and the serving of "banning orders" on hundreds of leaders of the
liberation movement and on black writers, they could not be quoted, and their
views could not be disseminated. The regime hoped that the people would forget
their movement and their leaders in the course of time.

A façade of a free press remained since the English—language press, supporting

the opposition parties, could still criticise the regime. The criticism, however
strident, was within the confines of white power and the controversy was on
reform or regression under the system of white domination. Yet, as some of the
newspapers exposed the excesses of apartheid, the regime enacted several
restrictive laws prohibiting, for instance, reporting on prison conditions and police
and defence matters, without official permission, and consequently intimidated
the newspaper owners.

By the late 1960s, the press was subject to a hundred repressive laws and
newspaper editors who wished to report on repression against the people had to
have constant recourse to legal advice.

Rise of Alternative Press

-I
47

With the revival of large—scale resistance, especially by the black youth and
trade unions in the 1970s, black journalists, though employed by white—owned
papers, tried to utilise all possibilities to reflect the sentiments and aspirations of
the black people.

During the upsurge after the Soweto massacre of African students on June 16,
1976, the African townships became centres of resistance. Police resorted to
indiscriminate shooting, killing and wounding of thousands of youth and students.
As white reporters could not enter the segregated townships, the white—owned
press had to rely on African reporters, both from their staff and free—lance
journalists, who covered the events at great personal risk.

Soon after, the regime detained many African journalists, including the entire
leadership of the Union of Black Journalists.

In 1980, after the independence of Zimbabwe, when Percy Qoboza, an African

editor, and Bishop Desmond Tutu launched a campaign for the release of Nelson
Mandela, there was another swoop on the journalists to suppress the nation—wide
campaign. The World, a white—owned newspaper which Percy Qoboza edited,
was banned in 1981 and many black journalists became unemployed.

A number of black journalists have continued to do what they could, using every
loophole in the web of restrictions and risking constant persecution.

In the past few years, an "alternative press", known as community papers, has
emerged. Edited by black journalists, these papers are weeklies or monthlies with
limited circulation and insecure finances, but they have been courageous in
reporting on the revolutionary upsurge in the black communities.

The regime is now intent on destroying this alternative press, while intimidating
the opposition white establishment press so as to prevent all coverage of
resistance. It is equally anxious to prevent objective reporting by international
media.

Recent Restrictions on the Media

The latest assaults by the regime on the media cannot be treated as only further
additions to the armoury of restrictions. The motives of the regime seem more
sinister.
-I
48

The regime has not been able to suppress the popular resistance despite the state
of emergency and massive repression. Over 30,000 people have been detained,
including nearly 10,000 juveniles: thousands of them have been tortured. White
vigilantes have killed a number of popular leaders. Yet, the resistance continues.

It appears that the regime intends to resort to even more violence and brutality. It
is anxious that the extent of its barbarism should be concealed by a curtain of
censorship. It feels that its show of some restraint to give credibility to President
Reagan’s policy of "constructive engagement" has failed as he could not prevent
partial sanctions by the United States of America.

In this context, the media, as well as Governments and organisations committed to

the anti—apartheid struggle, will need to consider means to: (a) obtain news of
developments inside South Africa; (b) reach the people inside South Africa; and
(c) show solidarity with the oppressed people and the South African journalists
who are making a significant contribution to the struggle for freedom.

Media Cannot be Neutral on Apartheid

In 1981, the Special Committee against Apartheid organised a seminar in Berlin,

German Democratic Republic, on "Publicity and Role of the Mass Media in the
International Mobilisation against Apartheid". The Seminar stated in its
declaration:

"All those committed to the liberation of South Africa must make every
effort to mobilise public opinion in all countries, especially in Western and
other countries which provide vital support to enable the apartheid regime
to survive, and promote widest public action, in concert with the efforts of
committed Governments and in accordance with the resolutions of the
United Nations and other international organisations.
In this context, the mass media have a crucial role and responsibility.
The media must publicise the legitimacy of the struggle against apartheid
waged by the national liberation movements.
The media must make the world aware of the inhumanity of apartheid, the
struggle of the people of South Africa and Namibia under the leadership of
their national liberation movements and the need for effective
international action.
The media must expose the nefarious propaganda of the apartheid regime
and its allies, including efforts to defame the national liberation
movements.
-I
49

The media must investigate, publicise the expose the sustenance of the
apartheid regime by certain Western Powers and transnational
corporations. ...
Neither the media nor anyone else can be neutral on apartheid, which is
the greatest moral challenge of our time and a grave threat to peace and
international security and co-operation."

The Seminar went on to make a number of concrete proposals for action by

Governments, organisations and the media.

The major international media, especially in the West, must be persuaded that
they cannot be neutral on the inhumanity of apartheid, which involved even
indiscriminate killing and mass torture of children, and threatens to engulf the
whole region in a ghastly conflict. The pretence of neutrality only makes it
possible for the Pretoria regime to maintain an aura of respectability as a
legitimate Government and to plant its vicious propaganda in the media.

Meanwhile, independent and third world media should consider a more effective
contribution to the international campaign against apartheid by: (a) publicising the
struggle of the people against racist tyranny; (b) promoting concrete support to the
liberation movements and all others engaged in the struggle; (c) exposing those
who collaborate with and sustain the apartheid regime; and (d) encouraging
international actions of solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa.

Most third world countries have no correspondents in South Africa and are totally
dependent on Western news media for information on developments in South
Africa and Namibia. They seem to have misunderstood the scope and purpose of
the boycott of South Africa as covering even the media and, as a result, there is
little reporting of a revolution that is of vital interest to them.

I would suggest that third world news media send correspondents to South Africa
to contact the movement inside the country and provide objective reporting which
reflects the sentiments of the majority population and is not tainted by Western
prejudices or preconceptions.

If the Pretoria regime refuses visas or work permits, as it well may, the media
should utilise unorthodox means to send their representatives. They can also
employ the many competent black journalists in South Africa. It may be noted
that several Western newspapers, as well as television and radio networks,
employ South Africans, but generally white liberals.
-I
50

Coverage from neighbouring States, based mainly on South African press, is

preferable to no coverage, but it is hardly satisfactory.

The freedom movement has been developing clandestine channels for sending
information abroad and the media should establish contacts to obtain the
information.

Journalists in the Liberation Struggle

The struggles and sacrifices of black journalists in South Africa, as well as some
white journalists who have identified with the liberation movement, deserve to be
publicised.

Scores of journalists have been imprisoned or prohibited from pursuing their

profession, and some were brutally tortured. Several are now in detention under
the state of emergency. A few names are illustrative:

1. Ruth First. An editor of New Age. Kept in solitary confinement for 117
days in 1963. Assassinated by a parcel bomb in Maputo in 1982.
2. Peter Magubane. Prominent press photographer, known internationally.
Arrested several times and spent over 600 days in solitary confinement.
Was prohibited for several years from journalism.
3. Harry Mashabela. A senior reporter and former President of Union of
Black Journalists. Detained for 16 weeks after the Soweto massacre of
1976.
4. Juby Mayet. A Johannesburg journalist who worked for an ecumenical
newspaper. Detained in 1977.
5. Govan Mbeki. One of the editors of New Age. Sentenced to life
imprisonment in 1964 with Nelson Mandela. Restricted after release from
prison in 1987.
6. Quraish Patel. A Durban reporter. Detained in 1977—1978.
7. Zwelakhe Sisulu. Son of Walter Sisulu, ANC leader in prison with Nelson
Mandela. Editor of the weekly New Nation. Detained and restricted
several times. Has been in detention since late 1986.
8. Joe Thloloe. Former President of the Union of Black Journalists. Detained
for several months in 1976 and again in 1977 under the Terrorism Act and
brutally interrogated.

Some of them have been honoured in the West and several black journalists have
been Nieman fellows at Harvard University in the United States.

I would suggest that third world media should employ the black journalists as
correspondents in South Africa.
-I
51

UN SPECIAL COMMITTEE AGAINST APARTHEID - 25

YEARS (MAY 6, 1988)

Mr. Chairman,

The Special Committee has been so much a part of my life - and I had the
privilege of working with it for so many years - that I can hardly contribute an
objective assessment of its work.

Nor can I find adequate words to pay tribute to the Committee, its Chairmen and
members for their untiring efforts for the liberation of South Africa, trying to
secure the participation of all governments and all segments of world public
opinion in the campaign of solidarity. The official records hardly do justice to its
contribution and to the impact it has had on the functioning of the United Nations.

I must also pay tribute to numerous organisations and individuals around the
world whose friendship and cooperation have enabled the Committee to make a
unique contribution. I will only mention a few who have passed away recently -
Mrs. Alva Myrdal, Canon L. John Collins, Olof Palme, Sean MacBride and most
recently Fenner Brockway.

When the Special Committee was established, not a single Western country
supported the simple request to end collaboration and fraternisation with the
regime of apartheid. There was not much support even in Latin America and other
regions. Today almost all governments - including even a majority of Western
States - as well as numerous public organisations, call for sanctions against
apartheid.

The South African liberation movements now receive assistance from

governments and peoples in all regions of the world.

The Special Committee can be proud of its contribution in building this alliance
against apartheid.

The task has not been easy. It has demanded courage, determination, imagination
and even sacrifice.

How many times have the Committee and the Centre against Apartheid been
attacked and threatened for merely taking note of reports of support from some
-I
52

countries to the apartheid regime, especially in the military field, and making
enquiries from the governments concerned - years later to receive confirmations
and confessions!

How many times have they received forged letters and poison-pen letters! How
many times have their papers been stolen and how many times have they been
trailed!

How many times have they been attacked as far too radical and anti-Western for
being uncompromisingly anti-apartheid!

Yet, no one can find in the voluminous records of the Special Committee any
trace of hatred for the Afrikaners or the other whites in South Africa.

The Committee could count among its friends many Western leaders - not only
from the smaller countries, but also from the major Powers, not only bishops and
archbishops and other public leaders, but officials - I might mention Governor
Adlai Stevenson, Justice Arthur Goldberg, Lord Caradon, Claude Cheysson and
Andy Young.

If we faced hostility from time to time, we also had many occasions for immense
satisfaction because of the results of our labours and the affection of numerous
friends around the world.

Mr. Chairman,

I have no advice to proffer to the Committee.

I would only express my hope that the Committee will, at least now, receive the
sincere cooperation of all those who profess detestation of apartheid.
Nelson Mandela, speaking before the racist court a day after the General
Assembly decided in 1962 to establish this Committee, declared that in fighting
against racial discrimination, he was sustained by the knowledge that the
overwhelming majority of humanity was with him.

Our responsibility today is not merely to sustain the faith of freedom fighters.
The issue is no longer merely support for freedom in South Africa, but the solemn
responsibility of the United Nations to the people of Namibia, the security and
even survival of the frontline States, the right of self-defence of Africa, and the
-I
53

imperative need to put an end to the growing threat to international peace and
security.

The destruction of apartheid is our goal as much as that of the people of South
Africa.

Mr. Chairman,

I cannot feel free, as an Indian, until South Africa is free of apartheid. You can
count on me as a volunteer in the international campaign against apartheid until
that great day.
-I
54

FREE NELSON MANDELA

An Account of the Campaign to Free Nelson Mandela and all other Political
Prisoners in South Africa11

"We are not calling for his release on humanitarian grounds. We are doing
so on political grounds. We are saying that he is our leader. This is the
acknowledged leader of the group that most blacks support, but more than
that we are saying he is symbolic because we want all leaders, all political
prisoners, released not on humanitarian grounds but on the grounds that
this is going to be part of how we build up a climate conducive to
negotiation."
- Bishop Desmond Tutu, interview on January 31, 1986

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela has been in prison for over a quarter of a century -
since August 5, 1962 - for leadership of his people in the struggle against racist
oppression and for a non-racial democratic society.

Prison bars could not prevent him from continuing to inspire his people to
struggle and sacrifice for their liberation. Public opinion polls have again and
again shown that he is the most popular leader in the country. He has, indeed,
grown in stature. As the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group observed in
1986, he has become "a living legend", galvanising the resistance in the country.
The London Times described him as "the colossus of African nationalism in South
Africa."

Mandela has become known and respected all over the world as a symbol of the
struggle against apartheid and all forms of racism and a hero of African liberation.
He is the most honoured political prisoner in history. He has received prestigious
international awards, the freedom of many cities, and honorary degrees from
several universities. Musicians have been inspired to compose songs and music in
his honour. A major international art exhibit was dedicated to him and some of
the most prominent writers have contributed to a book for him. Even an atomic
particle has been named after him.

11
This article was written in connection with the observance of the 70th birthday of Nelson
Mandela in July 1988. Published in the Patriot, New Delhi.
-I
55

Balthazar John Vorster, the architect of the repressive measures under which
Mandela and his colleagues were jailed in the 1960s, vowed that they would
remain in prison "this side of eternity". The regime prohibited the South African
press from quoting them or even publishing their pictures without ministerial
permission. It hoped that they would soon be forgotten.

But neither the South African people nor world public opinion have forgotten
them. Vorster was obliged to bemoan in 1978 that Africa and the world see
Nelson Mandela as the real leader of the black majority in South Africa.

The World Campaign for the Release of South African Political Prisoners,
launched when he was charged in the "Rivonia trial" in 1963, has become one of
the most powerful international movements of our time. All governments of the
world have repeatedly called for his unconditional release, in the United Nations
and other fora. Parliaments, trade unions, religious bodies and numerous other
public organisations, as well as millions of people around the world, have joined
the campaign which has greatly helped to educate world public opinion about the
struggle in South Africa.

They call for the release of Nelson Mandela as the essential first step, to be
accompanied and followed by the release of all other political prisoners, the
ending of repression and state terrorism, the unbanning of the African National
Congress and other people's organisations, the dismantling of apartheid and the
establishment of a non-racial democratic State.

Faced with pressure from the South African people and the international
community, the Pretoria regime launched propaganda that Nelson Mandela was a
"terrorist" and a "Communist" but failed. It offered him "conditional release" but
was rebuffed. In its desperation, it has now even banned appeals and demands in
South Africa for the release of political prisoners; the demands from the
international community must grow stronger and be backed by effective action.
The World Campaign must be further strengthened this year, the year of the
seventieth birthday of Nelson Mandela. For, the issue is not merely the freedom
of a leader of the people but the future of South Africa and peace in southern
Africa.

A Campaign for Peace and Justice

-I
56

The "Free Mandela" campaign has been a vital concern of the freedom movement
in South Africa, as well as the solidarity movement around the world, for a
quarter of a century. That is as it should be.

For Mandela represents freedom and democracy, and the urge for a peaceful
transformation of South Africa from a land of racist oppression to a democratic
State - from a source of conflict and war to a force for peace and co-operation -
through a process of consultation, reconciliation and negotiation. He is in prison
because he stands against a racist regime which seeks through violence and terror
to perpetuate white supremacy, and has caused immense suffering all over
southern Africa.

Mandela was a leader of the non-violent movement for freedom since the early
forties, as founder and secretary of the ANC Youth League, as Deputy President
of the African National Congress and as Volunteer-in-Chief of the "Campaign of
Defiance of Unjust Laws", one of the great non-violent resistance movements in
recent times. He suffered imprisonment, restrictions and harassment and even a
four-year-long trial for treason under laws which progressively closed avenues for
peaceful resistance.

After the Sharpeville massacre of peaceful demonstrators in 1960, the regime

banned the African National Congress and detained Mandela for several months.
After release, he went underground and, at the request of an All-in African
Conference, led the stay- at-home strike in protest against the establishment of a
white racist Republic, demanding the convening of a national convention of the
genuine representatives of all the people of the country to decide on its future.
When that strike was suppressed by the use of massive military force, the
movement abandoned its strict adherence to non-violence. He became head of
Umkhonto we Sizwe, the multi-racial underground organisation, to reinforce mass
mobilisation with sabotage and other armed actions. When Umkhonto initiated
sabotage in December 1961, taking great care to avoid loss of human life, it
proclaimed that its members prefer to achieve liberation without bloodshed and
civil clash. It called for a change in the government and its policies in the best
interests of all the people, black, brown and white.

The racist regime, for its part, relied on more violence. It embarked on an
enormous expansion of its military forces and arms, and the militarisation of the
entire white community, to resist the "winds of change" in Africa. It enacted a
series of laws for preventive detention and restriction, laying down death
sentences for political offences.
-I
57

Mandela was arrested and sentenced on November 7, 1962, to five years'

imprisonment for "incitement" of the strike in May 1961 and for leaving the
country without a passport to meet African leaders. Mass arrests and detentions
followed. Other leaders of the Umkhonto were caught at a farm in Rivonia on July
11, 1963. Mandela was brought to trial again with his colleagues - in what came
to be known as "Rivonia Trial" - and sentenced to life imprisonment in June 1964.
Mandela had told the court in November 1962:
"I hate the practice of race discrimination and in my hatred I am sustained
by the fact that the overwhelming majority of mankind hate it equally...
"I have no doubt that posterity will pronounce that I was innocent and that
the criminals that should have been brought to court are the members of
the Verwoerd government."

The United Nations and the international community condemned apartheid and
repression, and demanded the release of Mandela and all other political prisoners.
They have, in effect, fully endorsed Mandela's declaration. By not heeding the
demands of the United Nations and continuing repression, the apartheid regime
has compounded its crimes.

The World Campaign is a continuing reaffirmation that the world stands behind
Nelson Mandela and the cause he represents.

He is entitled to release on humanitarian grounds: even under the practice of the

apartheid regime, persons sentenced to life imprisonment are released after about
fourteen years, but Mandela and his colleagues have been given no remission or
parole for 24 years.

But we do not seek mercy from the racist rulers of South Africa. We demand
Mandela's release because apartheid is a crime and the struggle against it is fully
legitimate. We demand his release, above all, so that he can lead his people in
ridding the country of racist tyranny and building a democratic State. That is
imperative for peace in South Africa and in southern Africa as a whole.

Beginning of the Campaign

Soon after Mandela was arrested in 1962, the Pretoria regime banned all meetings
to protest any arrests or trials. It placed Ahmed Kathrada, who initiated a "Free
Mandela" campaign, under house arrest. It proceeded to detain and torture
thousands of militants of the freedom movement in order to crush all resistance.
-I
58

Repression in South Africa became a matter of acute international concern.

On October 8, 1963, the day that Mandela and others were brought before the
court in the "Rivonia trial", the United Nations began an emergency discussion of
the situation. The Special Political Committee of the General Assembly heard Mr
Oliver Tambo, then Deputy President of the African National Congress, and the
Right Reverend Ambrose Reeves, President of the British Anti-Apartheid
Movement.

Three days later, on October 11, 1963, the General Assembly adopted resolution
1881 (XVIII) calling on the South African government to end repression of
persons opposed to apartheid, abandon the Rivonia trial and release all political
prisoners and all persons imprisoned, interned or restricted for having opposed the
policy of apartheid. The resolution was adopted by 106 votes to 1, with only the
South African delegation voting against.

(The date of that historic resolution - October 11th - was subsequently proclaimed
by the United Nations as the Day of Solidarity with South African Political
Prisoners.)

The British Anti-Apartheid Movement set up the World Campaign for the Release
of South African Political Prisoners, with the sponsorship of several Members of
Parliament and other public leaders. Jeremy Thorpe, Liberal Party Member of
Parliament, was elected honorary secretary.

Since that time, the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid and the
Anti-Apartheid Movement have worked in close co-operation in constantly
publicising repression in South Africa and promoting international campaigns by
governments and the public for the release of political prisoners. I must pay
personal tribute to many members of the AAM - Jeremy Thorpe, Sonia Bunting,
Ruth First, Abdul S. Minty, Mike Terry and others - for their dedicated efforts.
The UN Special Committee wrote to all governments to intercede with the South
African regime and received wide response, with several Heads of State and
Government taking prompt action.

The World Campaign in London, under the energetic direction of Jeremy Thorpe,
approached leaders of public opinion all over the world and initiated petition
campaigns.

In March 1964, it presented to the UN Secretary- General a declaration signed by

143 eminent personalities which declared:
-I
59

"The men and women arrested in the Rivonia raid, with those joining them
in trial, are at the centre of a government attempt to crush all resistance to
white supremacy in South Africa. They would not face trial at all in any
rational society; they are leaders of a popular struggle for the defeat of
racist rule, for the recognition of rights regarded as natural wherever a
common humanity is acknowledged. Their struggle is the struggle of all
men for freedom; their trial is the trial of all men who want to be free...
"International opinion must act again, now, to ensure the release of the
accused."

The signatories included writers and artists, academics, political, trade union and
religious leaders, jurists and others such as: Louis Aragon, W.H. Auden, Simone
de Beauvoir, Isaiah Berlin, Sir Hugh Casson, Isaac Deutscher, Barbara Hepworth,
Bishop Trevor Huddleston, Sir Julian Huxley, Jomo Kenyatta, Arthur Koestler,
Doris Lessing, Lord Listowel, Kingsley Martin, Otto Nathan, Dr Joseph
Needham, Sean O'Faolain, Harold Pinter, Satyajit Ray, Paul Robeson, Bishop
Ambrose Reeves, Bertrand Russell, Upton Sinclair, Lionel Trilling, Kenneth
Tynan, Angus Wilson, Ilya Ehrenburg and His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The World Campaign followed with petitions signed by over 185,000 people, as
well as organisations representing no less than 250 million people.

Demonstrations, deputations and other actions were organised by many groups

and individuals around the world. In London, five members of the Committee of
Afro-Asian-Caribbean Organisations went on a week-long hunger strike at St.
Martin in the Fields, Trafalgar Square, to demonstrate their concern over the
Rivonia trial and other developments.

World opinion was somewhat relieved when Mandela and his colleagues were
spared the death penalty and sentenced to life imprisonment. But the campaign
had to continue for their release, and for the liberation of numerous others
detained or sentenced for their opposition to apartheid. Indeed, there had to be
scores of campaigns within the campaign, as repression increased.

Campaigns against Death Sentences and Executions

Particularly alarming were death sentences imposed under the "sabotage act" of
1962, and other arbitrary laws, for political offences. Vuyisile Mini, Wilson
Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba, three leaders of the African National Congress and
the South African Congress of Trade Unions in Port Elizabeth, were sentenced to
death in March 1964. (Mini was also a composer and singer and had written many
-I
60

popular freedom songs). The indictment referred to a petrol bomb attack on the
house of an informer which resulted in his death, but none of them was charged
with direct participation in the attack.

Washington Bongco, an ANC leader in East London, was similarly sentenced to

death in the same month under the "sabotage act".

A campaign against death sentences and executions was launched by the UN

Special Committee and the World Campaign. The UN Security Council, in June
1964, called on South Africa to renounce the execution of any persons sentenced
to death for their opposition to apartheid. Appeals for clemency were sent by a
number of governments, trade unions and other organisations. But the three men
in Port Elizabeth were hanged on November 6, 1964, and Mr Bongco in February
1965.

Many campaigns against detentions and trials of opponents of apartheid and

against death sentences have been launched since then by the anti-apartheid
movements and other organisations, with the support of the UN Special
Committee. They concerned a number of freedom fighters who have been
executed: Solomon Mahlangu (executed on April 6, 1979); Jerry Mosololi,
Marcus Motoung and Thelle Mogoerane (June 9, 1983); Benjamin Moloise,
(October 18, 1985); Sipho Xulu, Clarence Payi and Sibuyiso Zondo (September 9,
1986); and Moises Jantjies and Wellington Melies (September 1987). Campaigns
were successful in other cases: freedom fighters were spared the death sentence,
or won appeals, or, as in the case of James Mange, had the sentences commuted
because of international pressure.

The "no apartheid executions" campaign had to be greatly expanded in the past
few years because of numerous trials with the threat of death sentences. The death
sentences against the "Sharpeville Six" and the cases of thirty or more political
prisoners on the death row are currently matters of acute concern.

Campaigns on Prison Conditions and Torture of Detainees

The Pretoria regime enacted a number of laws providing for arbitrary and
indefinite detention of any persons suspected of political offences, and even
potential witnesses.

The detainees are held in solitary confinement for prolonged periods, denied
access to family, lawyers or even courts. The purpose is to break them, extract
-I
61

confessions or information on the underground movement - and to intimidate all

those opposed to apartheid.

Reports began to be received from 1963 of prolonged solitary confinement and

denial of exercise, contrary to international minimum standards, as well as brutal
assaults and torture, including electric shocks. A large percentage of the detainees,
so brutalised, were never even charged in court.

Persons sentenced to prison for political offences were automatically placed for a
year or more in the "D" category meant for hardened and dangerous criminals,
and allowed only one visit and a letter every six months. They were frequently
beaten, humiliated and punished.

Numerous affidavits from former prisoners became available in 1964 and

vigorous protests were organised by the UN Special Committee and the World
Campaign. The campaign on prison conditions was further developed in 1966
when Dennis Brutus, a poet and sports leader who had spent 22 months in Robben
Island prison, arrived in London and was appointed director of the campaign in
the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa (IDAF).

In February 1967, the Special Committee requested the UN Commission on

Human Rights to consider the grave situation and passed on the affidavits and
other evidence to it. The Commission expressed its serious concern and
established a Working Group of jurists to undertake an international investigation.
The consequent publicity and outrage persuaded the South African regime to
make some improvements in prisons and to invite the delegate of the International
Committee of the Red Cross to visit the prisoners.

But to this day, that regime refuses to allow such visits to detainees or awaiting-
trial prisoners. Thousands of detainees have been tortured and scores of members
of the freedom movement have died in detention. The evidence of prison
conditions, documented by international bodies, is a shocking indictment of the
apartheid regime, its police, prison officials and courts.

Particularly shocking has been the detention of thousands of children under the
State of Emergency since 1985. An International Conference on Children,
Repression and Law in Apartheid South Africa (Harare, September 1987)
attended by many children, parents and lawyers from South Africa, confirmed
reports of systematic assaults and torture against children in detention. The
-I
62

outrage around the world persuaded the apartheid regime to release many children
but there are still far too many in detention.

Assistance to Political Prisoners and their Families

The campaigns against arbitrary trials and executions, and against torture of
political prisoners, have been accompanied by efforts to provide legal assistance
to the prisoners and welfare grants to their families facing hardship.

The Defence and Aid Fund and other organisations had been raising funds from
the public since the 1950s for such assistance to the victims of repression in South
Africa, but the needs greatly increased with the escalation of repression since
1963. There was again an enormous increase after the institution of the State of
Emergency in 1985 and the detention of tens of thousands of people.

Following appeals by the UN Special Committee and General Assembly since

1963, a number of governments have made annual contributions to the
International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa (IDAF) or to the United
Nations Trust Fund for South Africa for humanitarian assistance to South African
political prisoners and their families.

The governmental and public contributions have been a demonstration of

solidarity with the political prisoners. They have helped alleviate suffering faced
by thousands of families. Legal assistance, moreover, helped to curb the excesses
of the South African Police and secure the acquittal, or reduction of sentences, of
thousands of persons charged with political offences.

Release of all Political Prisoners - a Prerequisite for a Solution

While specific campaigns and activities had to be constantly undertaken, the basic
issue remained that an amnesty to political prisoners is essential to a negotiated
and relatively peaceful solution of the crisis in South Africa. On this, there has
been virtual unanimity in the international community.

The United Nations annually adopted resolutions calling for the release of South
African political prisoners, with the unanimous support of all Member States.

In 1975 - in connection with the thirtieth anniversary of the United Nations - its
General Assembly proclaimed that "the United Nations and the international
community have a special responsibility towards the oppressed people of South
-I
63

Africa and their liberation movements, and towards those imprisoned, restricted
or exiled for their struggle against apartheid." It recognised the contribution of the
liberation movements and other opponents of apartheid in South Africa to the
purposes of the United Nations; expressed its solidarity with all South Africans
struggling against apartheid and for the principles of the Charter of the United
Nations; and again called upon the racist regime of South Africa "to grant an
unconditional amnesty to all persons imprisoned or restricted for their opposition
to apartheid or acts arising from such opposition, as well as to political refugees
from South Africa, and to repeal all repressive laws and regulations restricting the
right of the people to strive for an end to the apartheid system."

Public activity paralleled the United Nations resolutions. Petitions for the release
of Mandela and other political prisoners continued to arrive at the United Nations
from many countries. In March 1978, for instance, the British Anti-Apartheid
Movement delivered petitions signed by about 45,000 persons in four countries:
petitions with about 40,000 signatures came directly from seven other countries.
(This collection of petitions followed a recommendation of the World Conference
for Action against Apartheid, held in Lagos in August 1977).

Observance of the Sixtieth Birthday of Nelson Mandela

By the 1970s, the liberation movement in South Africa recovered from the blows
it had suffered in 1963-64, and a national upsurge followed the massacre of
hundreds of African schoolchildren in Soweto on June 16, 1976. Defying the
laws, the black people held mass demonstrations showing their loyalty to the
ANC and hailing Nelson Mandela as their leader.

The world-wide observance of the sixtieth birthday of Nelson Mandela on July

18, 1978, became a very effective demonstration of solidarity.

More than ten thousand letters and telegrams were sent by governments,
organisations and individuals to Nelson Mandela on Robben Island prison or to
Winnie Mandela, then confined to the remote dorp of Brandfort.

Meetings were held in many capitals, including one in the Grand Committee
Room of the House of Commons in London under the sponsorship of the UN
Special Committee, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and the International Defence
and Aid Fund for Southern Africa.
-I
64

Prime Minister James Callaghan of the United Kingdom paid tribute to Mandela
on the floor of the House of Commons and sent good wishes to him on behalf of
the government. Several members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers also sent
personal greetings.

Reference was made to the event in the United States Congress by Congressman
John Conyers. The National Assembly of Lesotho adopted a resolution calling for
the release of political prisoners and an end to apartheid.

Posters, greeting cards, badges etc., were produced in many countries and a
photographic exhibit - "The Struggle is My Life" - by IDAF was shown widely.
Millions of people saw a 60-minute television spot supplied by the United Nations
to television stations.

Campaign by Sunday Post and International Response

After the victory of the Patriotic Front in the elections in Zimbabwe in March
1980, on the eve of that country's independence, the continuing crisis in South
Africa attracted new attention. Even Prime Minister P.W. Botha spoke of the need
for a conference of "all races" in the country.

Percy Qoboza, editor of Sunday Post in Johannesburg, launched a campaign for

the release of Nelson Mandela, and received enormous support in South Africa
and internationally. He wrote in an editorial on March 9, 1980:
"... the time has come for all of the peoples of the country to face the
realities of our situation squarely in the face...
"One of the realities we must face up to is that Nelson Mandela commands
a following that is unheard of in this land. To embark on any solution or
discussion without his wise input would only be following the blind
politics of Ian Smith and Muzorewa in Zimbabwe and the outcome would
be just as disastrous.
"For this reason, and for the sake of bringing about genuine peace and
reconciliation in our trouble torn land, we ask you to join us in having
Nelson Mandela released as soon as possible."
A petition sponsored by Sunday Post soon received over 86,000 signatures and
was supported by many organisations and leaders of opinion. A Release Nelson
Mandela Committee was formed in the same month with Mrs Nokukhanya
Luthuli (wife of the late Chief Albert Luthuli) as patron.

The South African Council of Churches declared, in supporting the petition:

-I
65

"We believe that the Church, in its role as peacemaker, must help the
people of South Africa to avoid needless suffering and bloodshed... Such
suffering can only be avoided if Mandela and other leaders in prison or in
exile are enabled to share in the reshaping of a unitary South African
society more conformed to God's will for justice and peace."
Zinzi Mandela expressed the spirit of the campaign in a speech at the University
of Witwatersrand on March 20, 1980:
"My generation have seen grave crimes of oppression committed against
the people. We grew up discussing the latest pass raids, whose father had
been detained, who has lost a parent in detention, or in which prison one
of your parents is, when last they were visited, when the last police raid
was in your home...
"I have seen the anger of my people mounting. But perhaps with the
release of my father, there could be an alternative to the bloodbath."

The release of Mandela became an issue uniting the broadest segments of the
South African people. All black leaders with any following, as well as several
white leaders, expressed support.

The demand in South Africa was immediately supported internationally by the

UN Special Committee, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and others.

For the first time, both the Security Council and the General Assembly of the
United Nations specifically mentioned Nelson Mandela in calling for the release
of South African political prisoners. (Security Council resolution 473 of June 13,
1980 and General Assembly resolution 35/206 of December 16, 1980).

The Summit Conferences of the Organisation of African Unity and the

Commonwealth called unanimously for the release of Nelson Mandela, as did the
European Parliament representing a wide spectrum of political affiliations. Many
governments and national Parliaments and numerous organisations joined in the
demand.

Mayors' Declaration

In August 1981, the City of Glasgow awarded the Freedom of the City to Nelson
Mandela. Later that year, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Right Honourable
Michael Kelley, with the encouragement of the UN Special Committee, initiated a
Declaration of Mayors for the immediate and unconditional release of Nelson
Mandela and all other political prisoners in South Africa.
-I
66

Two thousand two hundred and sixty-four Mayors from 56 countries signed the
Declaration.

Extension of the Campaign in 1982

On August 5, 1982, the twentieth anniversary of the arrest of Nelson Mandela, the
President of the African National Congress and the Chairman of the UN Special
Committee called for an expansion of the campaign: their appeal was supported
by anti-apartheid movements and many other organisations. On October 11th,
Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, President of the British Anti-Apartheid
Movement, launched an international declaration which read in part:
"We cannot accept that Nelson Mandela and other imprisoned leaders
would be allowed to spend the rest of their lives in the dungeons of
apartheid.
"We refuse to believe that the world can any longer tolerate the defiance
of the South African authorities in the face of world-wide appeals for the
release of Nelson Mandela.
"We, therefore, declare our determination actively to strive for the release
of Nelson Mandela and all South African political prisoners and urge the
United Nations and their governments and peoples of the world to join us
in this endeavour."
The declaration was signed by tens of thousands of persons from more than
seventy countries, including numerous Members of Parliament and other public
leaders. The UN Secretary-General also received many other petitions and
declarations from various organisations around the world.

The campaign continued through the 65th birthday of Nelson Mandela (July 18,
1983) which was observed in many countries. More than 20,000 young people in
the German Democratic Republic alone mailed postcards to him.

Awards and Honours to Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela had so inspired millions of people around the world that they
spontaneously found means to honour him and thereby declare solidarity with the
cause of freedom to which he dedicated his life.

Already in the 1960s, the student unions at the University College in London and
the University of Leeds elected him their honorary President.

He received the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding in 1980;

the Freedom of the City of Glasgow in 1981; and the Bruno Kreisky Prize for
-I
67

Human Rights in 1981. A road in the borough of Brent in London was named
after him in 1981.

Honours were also bestowed on other leaders of the liberation struggle.

Govan Mbeki, a colleague of Mandela, was awarded an honorary doctorate by the
University of Amsterdam in 1978, and Walter Sisulu was given a doctorate by the
Institute of African Studies in Moscow. The City of Amsterdam named a square
after Steve Biko in 1978.

The UN Special Committee was heartened by these actions and, on its proposal,
the UN General Assembly, on December 17, 1981, expressed "its appreciation to
those governments, cities, organisations and institutions that have honoured the
leaders of the struggle against apartheid imprisoned or restricted by the South
African regime, as part of the campaign for the release of political prisoners in
South Africa."

The Special Committee actively encouraged such honours as part of its efforts to
widen the release Mandela campaign in 1982, and the response was
overwhelming.

Nelson Mandela has received the Simon Bolivar International Prize, and the Third
World Foundation Prize; national awards from Cuba and the German Democratic
Republic; freedom of the cities of Rome, Florence, Olympia (Greece), Sydney,
Birmingham (Alabama, USA), borough of Greenwich (London) and the borough
of Islwyn (Wales); honorary degrees from the City College of New York,
University of Lancaster (United Kingdom), Free University of Brussels, Ahmadu
Bello University (Nigeria) and the University of Havana. Numerous institutions,
buildings and streets around the world are named after him and he has been
elected honorary member of many trade unions and other organisations.
His wife, Winnie Mandela, has been given a number of awards in recognition of
her fortitude, sacrifice and courage. Several other leaders of liberation movement
have been honoured.

New Sense of Urgency

The campaign took on a new sense of urgency with the unprecedented mass
resistance in South Africa since the imposition of a new racist constitution in
1984, the institution of a State of Emergency in 1985, the detention and torture of
tens of thousands of people and the constant killings of peaceful demonstrators.
-I
68

The demands of the United Democratic Front, the trade unions and numerous
other organisations - for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political
prisoners, the unbanning of the African National Congress and other people's
organisations, the ending of the State of Emergency and the dismantling of
apartheid - received strong support from the international community.

The campaign for the release of Nelson Mandela took on a new sense of urgency.
In 1984, both Houses of the United States Congress adopted a "Mandela freedom
resolution". Mayor Eugene "Gus" Newport of Berkeley, California, proclaimed
June 9, 1984, "Nelson and Winnie Mandela Day". The Detroit City Council
adopted a resolution on September 10, 1984, calling for the freedom of Nelson
and Winnie Mandela.

On October 11, 1984, three United States organisations - the National Alliance
against Racist and Political Oppression, the United States Peace Council and the
National Anti-Imperialist Movement in Solidarity with African Liberation -
presented to the United Nations petitions for the release of Nelson Mandela
signed by over 34,000 persons.

In Britain, SATIS (South Africa - the Imprisoned Society), associated with the
Anti-Apartheid Movement and supported by many organisations, greatly
expanded its efforts.

A new National Petition campaign - Free All Apartheid's Detainees - was

launched on June 11, 1987, by Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and Norman
Willis, general secretary of the Trade Union Congress, with the support of many
organisations.

Concerned groups have taken imaginative initiatives to promote the campaign.

"Bicycle for Mandela" became an annual event in Britain on the birthday of
Nelson Mandela. In the Netherlands, the Holland Committee on Southern Africa
issued a Mandela coin as part of its campaign against the Krugerrands and as a
means for fund-raising for the freedom movement.

In the United States, the Africa Fund, associated with the American Committee on
Africa, initiated a campaign to "Unlock Apartheid's Jails" under the honorary
chairmanship of Bill Crosby, a popular TV personality. Supporters were invited to
send keys as a demonstration of opposition to the detentions in South Africa.
The campaign was launched at the United Nations Headquarters on September 28,
1987, by Bill Crosby, together with the Mayors of six large cities in the United
-I
69

States. The Mayors presented keys to their cities to Bill Crosby and General J.N.
Garba, Chairman of the UN Special Committee.

Mandela Rejects Conditional Release

With the ever-growing demands in South Africa and internationally for the
release of Nelson Mandela, the Botha regime tried new manoeuvres. It
approached him in prison with an offer of release if he agreed to be confined to
the so-called "independent" bantustan of Transkei or go into exile, but he refused.
Then, in January 1985, P.W. Botha publicly announced that the regime would
consider his release if he gave undertakings to reject violence and to conduct
himself "in such a way that he will not have to be arrested" under apartheid laws.
Mandela's response was announced by his daughter, Zinzi, at a public meeting in
Soweto on February 10, 1985:
"I am surprised at the conditions that the government wants to impose on
me. I am not a violent man. My colleagues and I wrote in 1952 to Malan
asking for a round table conference to find a solution to the problems of
our country, but that was ignored. When Strijdom was in power, we made
the same offer. Again it was ignored. When Verwoerd was in power we
asked for a national convention for all the people in South Africa to decide
on their future. This, too, was in vain.
"It was only then when all other forms of resistance were no longer open
to us that we turned to armed struggle. Let Botha show that he is different
to Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd. Let him renounce violence. Let him say
that he will dismantle apartheid. Let him unban the people's organisation,
the African National Congress. Let him free all who have been
imprisoned, banished or exiled for their opposition to apartheid. Let him
guarantee free political activity so that people may decide who will govern
them.
"I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your
freedom... I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I am prepared to sell the
birthright of the people to be free...
"What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people
remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested
on a pass offence?... What freedom am I being offered when I must ask for
permission to live in an urban area? What freedom am I being offered
when I need a stamp in my pass to seek work? What freedom am I being
offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected?...
"I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the
people, are not free.
"Your freedom and mine cannot be separated."
-I
70

This declaration inspired the South African people and world opinion to redouble
their efforts for the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela, the unbanning of
the ANC and other organisations and other imperative measures.

Repression against Release Mandela Campaign in South Africa

The Pretoria regime has constantly tried to suppress the campaign in South Africa
for the release of Nelson Mandela which unites the people of South Africa more
than any other - not only the entire black majority of the population but many
whites who look to the future.

When Ahmed (Kathy) Kathrada initiated the campaign in 1962, it placed him
under house arrest and banned all meetings of the campaign. In 1971, Mewalal
Ramgobin initiated a Committee for Clemency in South Africa, and was elected
its national chairman. The Committee received support of many prominent South
Africans and presented a petition to the Minister of Justice for an amnesty to all
political prisoners.

Mewalal was served with banning orders in 1971 to prevent him from continuing
the campaign: he had to live for well over a decade under severe restrictions.

The Sunday Post, which initiated a petition campaign for the release of Mandela
in 1980 was soon closed down. Its editor, Percy Qoboza, was restricted. Its news
editor, Zwelakhe Sisulu, was served with severe banning orders and then detained
for many months.

"Release Mandela Committees" were set up in different regions of the country in

1983 - and a national organisation launched in April 1987 - to stress the need to
devise means for the authentic leaders of the people, in jail and in exile, "to play a
role in drawing the country out of the political quagmire into which it was
inexorably sinking". Many trade unions and other organisations joined the
Committee.

The RMC has been constantly harassed with many of its public meetings banned.
Its offices were repeatedly raided by the police and in March 1986, its
Johannesburg office was damaged by a bomb or arson.

Aubrey Mokoena, its national coordinator, was arrested many times. Paul David,
its secretary, was served with banning orders in August 1984 and then held for
several months on a charge of treason.
-I
71

In August 1986, a people's march was organised from Cape Town to the
Pollsmoor prison, where Mandela is confined, to give him a message which said
in part:

"You have not sold the birthright of your people to be free, and we will
not rest until you are free."

The Reverend Allan Boesak, who was to lead the march, was arrested before it
took place. The marchers were attacked by police.

In February this year, the regime banned activities by 17 organisations, and

restricted many of their leaders. The Release Mandela Committee was one of the
organisations which was affected, as were the Detainee Parents Support
Committee (aiding families of detainees) and the Detainees Support Committee
(assisting detainees after release). Jabu Ngwenya, treasurer of RMC, was
restricted. The regime specifically prohibited campaigns for the release of
political prisoners and the unbanning of organisations.

Alarmed at the implications of these measures, church leaders organised a

peaceful march from St. George's Cathedral in Cape Town to the Houses of
Parliament to present a petition to Prime Minister P.W. Botha. The police arrested
Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Catholic Archbishop Stephen Naidoo, the
Reverend Allan Boesak (President of the World Lutheran Federation) and the
Reverend Frank Chikane (General Secretary of the South African Council of
Churches) and other leaders of the march. They then attacked the other clergy and
their supporters with water cannon before removing them forcibly in police vans.

Carry the Campaign Forward

For 25 years, the South African people and the world community have demanded
the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners as the first essential
step toward freedom and peace in South Africa. This account gives only some
highlights of the campaign in numerous countries and communities.

Resisting these demands and keeping Mandela in prison, the racist regime has
tried to perpetuate white domination at the cost of enormous suffering to the
people. Thousands of people have been killed, injured and tortured, tens of
thousands have been detained. The resources of the country have been squandered
-I
72

to build the military machine and to carry on an unceasing war against the people
of South Africa, Namibia and the neighbouring independent African States.

The "Free Mandela" campaign is a call to stop this carnage and the drift to
disaster. The racist regime is not only unwilling, but has proved incapable, of
leading the country out of the morass. It is a criminal regime, devoid of any
legitimacy, while Mandela represents the ideals cherished by humanity and has
inspired the world even from prison. The campaign must not only continue with
greater determination, but must be backed by all sanctions on the Botha regime to
force it to heed reason.

Forty years of apartheid - and of the escalating repression, terror and aggression
with which it sustains itself - are more than humanity can afford to tolerate.
-I
73

EDUCATION AGAINST APARTHEID12

Some Observations

This seminar on "education against apartheid" has wisely refrained from limiting
its agenda to the role of formal educational institutions, and extended it to include
the activities of the media, religious bodies, non-governmental organisations and
conferences in educating the public and mobilising it for action against apartheid.
For, if the purpose is to promote action, it would be wrong to ignore the great
influence which the campaigns against apartheid have had and can have on
educating public opinion. The people oppressed by apartheid cannot be expected
to wait for the results of the long process of formal education from childhood of
generations of people in other countries.

This is not to belittle the importance of education in formal institutions, but to

warn against undue expectations as regards its contribution to action against
apartheid with a sense of urgency - especially in view of the restraints by
authorities and influence of vested interests on educational curricula in countries
where public action is crucial.

Programmes on apartheid in formal educational institutions should not lead to a

diversion of effort and resources from the educational or information aspects of
anti-apartheid activities. The two programmes are complementary and serve
related purposes.

Wider Purpose

Education of children about apartheid is desirable, but its purpose must be seen as
wider than promoting support for action against apartheid. It is not as if the
intention is to train the children to be more sensitive to the problem of racism than
the adults who have tolerated or collaborated with apartheid. Rather, the purpose
is to educate the entire community not only to act against apartheid now but to
learn from the struggle against apartheid in order to help build a world in which
people of diverse backgrounds live harmoniously in equality.

12
Paper presented to the International NGO Seminar on Education against Apartheid - organised
by the Non-governmental Organisations Sub-Committee on Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Apartheid and Decolonisation, in co-operation with the United Nations Special Committee
against Apartheid - at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, September 4-6, 1989
-I
74

The system of apartheid has developed in South Africa under certain historical
and other circumstances. It is based on an ideology that people of varied racial
origins or cultural backgrounds, or stages of development, cannot live together
and prosper as equals - and that the separation of peoples and domination by one
("white") group (baaskap) is essential.

The struggle for the abolition of this system in South Africa has been protracted
and extremely difficult - far more difficult than the struggle against colonialism of
mighty Powers - because it has been sustained by external forces, or the old
international order, which provided it political and economic support, and
obstructed concerted action for its abolition.

Educational programmes against apartheid must involve a study of the history of

South Africa; the emergence of apartheid, following conquest of the indigenous
people, as a system to replace and extend slavery; the use of the rich resources of
the country by the ruling minority to intensify exploitation and suppress
resistance; the enormous suffering caused by apartheid; and the rise of a great
liberation struggle. It must also include the international aspects of apartheid: the
forces that have profited from and sustained apartheid; and the rise of the anti-
apartheid movement as one of the most significant public movements of our time.

Such a study will help in understanding and dealing with problems in other
societies and in the international order. While apartheid is a unique phenomenon
in many ways, and the term should not be loosely used to cover other injustices, a
study of apartheid provides insights into, and encourages action on, other
problems which affect human rights and hinder genuine international co-
operation.

This aspect should be kept in mind so that action against apartheid and solidarity
with the liberation movement are not seen merely as assistance to the black
people of South Africa, ignoring the contribution that the South African struggle
has made to the world. The sanctions campaign is not only to help the oppressed
people in South Africa but to counter vested interests which corrupt societies in
countries which collaborate with the South African regime.

Education against apartheid in formal educational institutions will need to be in a

broad historical and international context.
-I
75

It will need to view apartheid as a system of oppression - following slavery,

colonialism and other injustices from which a large segment of humanity has
suffered for centuries - and the destruction of apartheid as a step in the process of
eliminating oppression and building a just international order.

It is not only South Africa that is inhabited by people of different racial origins.
Africa, as Agostinho Neto pointed out, can no more be only black any more than
Europe can be only white. A democratic arrangement for the living together of
peoples - benefiting from diversity of cultures - is essential for all regions and for
the whole world. A new and just world order cannot be built unless apartheid is
eliminated and the new generation grows up in uncompromising opposition to the
ideology of apartheid.

Education through Anti-Apartheid Campaigns

Most of the anti-apartheid activity of the past four decades can be described as
essentially educational or as having a great educational value. Forty years ago,
most of the world did not understand or appreciate the inhumanity of racism in
South Africa or how "apartheid" sought to make it worse. It was difficult to obtain
a resolution in the United Nations condemning apartheid - and those opposed
included some of the liberal Western countries which are now playing a
commendable role as supporters of the liberation movement.

In 1962, when the United Nations General Assembly first recommended sanctions
against South Africa, not a single Western government voted in favour. Now, the
great majority of Western countries support sanctions at least in principle. Every
Western country has imposed some sanctions, even if symbolic.

The change is not only at the governmental level, but also in churches and other
institutions. The Reverend Michael Scott was penalised by the church hierarchy
for his support of the freedom movement in South Africa, Father Trevor
Huddleston was recalled from South Africa and Bishop Ambrose Reeves was left
without a diocese for many years. Now the world religious bodies denounce
apartheid as heresy and take significant actions against it.

Apartheid has become a word that evokes detestation and no one - not even the
present rulers of South Africa - wish to be known as its advocates.

This change has come, in the first place, from public education. The anti-
apartheid movements and other public organisations - and many public leaders
-I
76

and some mass media - deserve commendation. The impact of their work has
shown how determined efforts to educate and mobilise public opinion can change
the attitudes of governments and institutions, and enhance the effectiveness of the
United Nations. (Public mobilisation for disarmament and against nuclear
weapons has in recent years provided another example which should greatly
encourage non-governmental organisations).

Evolution of Public Education against Apartheid

The evolution of public education through anti- apartheid activity may be briefly
recalled.

Until 1946, there was little public concern in the world even when the racist
regime in South Africa massacred peaceful demonstrators (except in connection
with the satyagraha of Indians led by Gandhi in 1906-14).

In 1946, with the Indian passive resistance, the African mineworkers' strike etc.,
a significant number of individuals and groups became concerned. Leaders like
Pandit Nehru of India, Fenner Brockway and Krishna Menon in London and Paul
Robeson in the United States helped publicise the struggles and aspirations of the
African and Indian people in South Africa and provided platforms for their
spokesmen.

It was the Defiance Campaign of 1952 which promoted wider consciousness of

apartheid and led to the establishment of organisations to educate public opinion
and assist those persecuted in the struggle against apartheid (e.g., Defence and
Aid Fund and Africa Bureau in London, and American Committee on Africa in
New York). That Campaign - which showed that the African people could
organise and lead a civilised mass resistance against a brutish regime - inspired
many people in the West, including prominent pacifists and humanists. Special
mention may be made of the Reverend Michael Scott, the Reverend Canon L.
John Collins and Father (later Archbishop) Trevor Huddleston in Britain; the
Reverend George Houser in the United States; and the Reverend Gunnar Helander
in Sweden. They were the main sources of public education at a time when the
United Nations was unable to move forward even in verbal condemnation of
apartheid because of the cold war and South Africa's place in the plans for
Western alliances.

From 1958 when Africa appealed for sanctions against the South African regime,
and 1960 when the Sharpeville massacre shocked world opinion, there has been a
-I
77

rapid growth of anti-apartheid and solidarity movements and of anti-apartheid

activity by trade unions, churches, and non-governmental organisations -
promoted by leaders of South African resistance who were sent into exile to
secure international support. While stressing boycotts and sanctions, they took up
action on many aspects of apartheid and against those who collaborate with and
sustain apartheid.

They have contributed immensely, in conjunction with the struggle inside South
Africa, to public education.

Consumer boycotts helped inform large numbers of people in Britain and the
Nordic countries about apartheid in the early 1960s. Sports and cultural boycotts
reached millions of people in many countries. Divestment campaigns in
universities - with teach-ins, erection of shanties etc., - covered large segments of
the academic community in Britain and the United States.

Honours to leaders of the South African struggle - notably to Nelson Mandela -

have had a great educational value all over the world.

Collaboration or non-collaboration with apartheid became a national issue in

many countries. A number of Western governments were obliged to revise their
policies; in some countries, governments fell in the process.

Many thousands of people suffered imprisonment and police violence in these

campaigns.

These campaigns, more than anything else, forced the mass media to report on the
realities of apartheid and the struggle of the oppressed people. They, more than
anything else, brought the issue of apartheid for discussion inside educational
institutions.

The impact of this public action on the United Nations was much greater than is
generally realised.

A change in the attitudes of Western governments, which was essential for

meaningful action by the United Nations, could be promoted by diplomatic action
of committed governments or by public opinion in their own countries. With the
independence of colonies, the composition of the United Nations changed in
favour of the liberation struggle and meaningful resolutions could be adopted. But
debates, resolutions and votes in the United Nations by themselves have limited
-I
78

effect and the newly-independent countries could exert little effective pressure on
the powerful Western governments. The movement within South Africa was in a
process of recovery and regrouping from 1963 to the mid-1970s. At that time, it
was the mobilisation of public opinion in the West - in conjunction with the
efforts of African and Non-aligned governments - that led to United Nations
action on the arms embargo, on boycotts, and on other aspects.

Since the mid-1970s, the upsurge in South Africa has itself helped educate world
public opinion and influence policies of governments.

Indirect Results of Anti-Apartheid Education

The effect of education of public opinion through anti-apartheid activity was not
only in building an international concert of governments and the public for action
against apartheid and in support of the liberation struggles in South Africa and
Namibia.

Perhaps equally important have been the indirect effects of the activity - and some
may be briefly indicated.

1. Promoting action against injustices in other countries:

Many years ago, it was the experience of the struggle in South Africa which
persuaded Mahatma Gandhi to launch a national campaign against untouchability
and disabilities of "untouchables" in India and secure not only legal equality but
"affirmative action."

In 1971, the boycott initiated by the Australian student movement against

apartheid sports teams developed into a major national event. Hundreds of
students were jailed and beaten up. A State of Emergency was declared in
Queensland to enable the apartheid rugby team to play. The sports boycott
developed into a confrontation with the conservative government; the students
were joined by trade unions and many churchmen and others. This soon served
to sensitise public opinion not only to apartheid in South Africa but to the racial
problem in Australia.

Similar examples can be found in several other countries.

2. Promoting support to liberation of other African countries:

-I
79

Public education and mobilisation against apartheid, especially since the

Sharpeville massacre of 1960, helped the development of solidarity with the
struggles in the Portuguese colonies and in Southern Rhodesia.

3. Promoting non-racialism:

The consistent efforts of the South African liberation movement, despite all the
repression by the white minority regime, to uphold non-racialism - and the
solidarity from people of all racial origins around the world - has had an effect on
world public opinion. It has helped promote non-racialism in other African
countries and broaden anti-racial movements outside Africa.

It may be recalled that the actions of the National Party regime soon after it came
to power in 1948 - the enactment of monstrous laws to dispossess the majority of
the people and the ruthless repression which accompanied it - provoked fears of a
racial conflict, with wide international repercussions. The title of the item
sponsored by Asian-African States in the United Nations agenda from 1952 to
1961 was "the question of race conflict arising from the policies of apartheid of
the government of the Union of South Africa". The liberation movement and the
solidarity movement deserve tremendous credit for averting a racial conflict and
promoting a broad alliance against apartheid, nationally and internationally.

4. Promoting United Nations action on human rights:

The growing concern over apartheid and the coalition built against it have helped
promote action in the United Nations and other international organisations on
racism in general, on social responsibility of corporations, on human rights etc. It
has helped develop international law on human rights.

United Nations Activity on Information and Education against Apartheid

The annual United Nations discussions, since apartheid was included in the
agenda in the wake of the Defiance Campaign, helped inform and educate public
opinion. But the United Nations did not begin active efforts in that direction until
1965 when the Special Committee against Apartheid proposed dissemination of
information on apartheid and United Nations action in order to counter South
African propaganda. Public information had become essential as the Western
governments stubbornly resisted any concrete action beyond the "voluntary" arms
embargoes imposed by some of them in 1963-64.
-I
80

There was considerable resistance to such information activity on the grounds that
the United Nations cannot engage in "propaganda." But the initiation of this
activity - in the context of what was called an "international campaign against
apartheid" - enabled the United Nations to undertake active information work in
later years on many other issues.

The activity remained on a very modest scale for many years, with hardly any
resources, and some of the proposals made by the Special Committee in 1965, and
endorsed by the General Assembly, have not yet been implemented. The Unit on
Apartheid (later Centre against Apartheid) had to work under great restraints and
was subject to pressures. The focus of its work was on providing factual
information, disseminating papers by activists of the liberation movement and
providing moral and political support to anti-apartheid activities of non-
governmental organisations. Mass media coverage could be obtained
occasionally, but only in some third world countries.

United Nations information policy is based on the assumption that the national
governments would disseminate the information provided by the United Nations.
In the case of apartheid, little co-operation could be obtained from governments
of countries where the education of public opinion was crucial, namely, the main
trading partners of South Africa. The Centre against Apartheid could only rely on
the co-operation of anti-apartheid movements and other non-governmental
organisations.

But even the modest activity of the United Nations had an impact as it helped
promote anti-apartheid movements, which were often in opposition to their
governments, and occasionally to publicise collaboration with apartheid and
embarrass the collaborators. That led to attacks on the Centre by some
governments and attempts to paralyse the work.

It was in the context of this information activity that the United Nations sought to
promote production of material for use in formal educational institutions, and
encouraged UNESCO to develop programmes on apartheid.

The UNESCO produced a report on the effects of apartheid on education, science

and culture in 1967, at the request of the Special Committee against Apartheid. It
subsequently expanded its work on apartheid.

In 1971, following consultations between UNESCO and the Special Committee,

the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting UNESCO
-I
81

to prepare an "educational kit on racial discrimination and apartheid in South

Africa" for "possible adaptation by national commissions of that organisation and
for distribution to institutions of learning" and to consider production of "films
and audio-visual material on apartheid."

Meanwhile, the British Anti-Apartheid Movement was also engaged in the

preparation of an education kit for British schools, and there was consultation
with UNESCO.

Since then, UNESCO has produced a substantial amount of educational and

information material on apartheid - though perhaps not the "kit" envisaged in
1971. Several anti-apartheid movements, the British Defence and Aid Fund, the
Washington Office on Africa etc., have also produced material for use in schools.

Some Current Concerns

The struggle of the South African people and the development of the international
solidarity movement have created a new situation in which the destruction of the
pillars of apartheid and a transition to a democratic society in South Africa,
without undue bloodshed, has become a distinct possibility. The change in the
international situation, particularly the erosion of the cold war which greatly
complicated the struggle of the South African people in the past four decades, can
help this process.

The liberation movement has shown great statesmanship in espousing

reconciliation rather than revenge against those who enforced or supported
oppression, and in initiating widest public discussion and consultation on its
proposals for a peaceful solution.

The translation of the new possibilities into reality will, however, need an
escalation of the resistance in South Africa and of international action. Illusions
about an "easy walk to freedom" would be disastrous.

Educational and information activity - on the inhumanity of apartheid, on the need

for wider sanctions, on support to the liberation movement and the mass
democratic movement, on exposing fake "reforms" - will need to be continued,
with active efforts to reach the mass media. There is also a need to emphasise
several current concerns resulting from the new situation.
-I
82

1. While apartheid is universally condemned - and Western governments have

often shown greater mastery of language in condemning it than African and Asian
governments - there is not yet a common understanding of apartheid. The
tendency to equate apartheid with its manifestations, and see great change when
some laws are amended, is still widespread in the media.

Apartheid is not Mixed Marriages Act or the pass laws or the Race Classification
Act. It is not even the ownership of most of the land by the white minority. The
abrogation of the laws or redistribution of land will not by themselves end
apartheid and white domination.

There can be no solution in South Africa without ending minority rule. A

democratic transition cannot take place under the aegis of the present rulers
wielding their powers of repression. Change must be made irreversible by an end
to repression and to control of repressive power by the practitioners of racist
domination.

2. The struggle in South Africa is a struggle for liberation with a long history. It is
not a "regional conflict" fanned by external powers which can be solved by them.
The great Powers can assist in a solution only by concerted action, through the
United Nations, to exert all necessary pressure against the illegitimate apartheid
regime to abandon repression and seek a peaceful solution in accordance with the
many unanimous resolutions of the United Nations.

3. It is the prerogative of the liberation movement and the people of South Africa
to negotiate a solution and to plan for a "post-apartheid" society. While others can
assist at their request, any attempts to manufacture blueprints externally will only
be futile or even harmful.

4. The future of South Africa will need to be decided by representatives of all its
people - including the black majority which has been excluded from that right
since power was transferred to the white minority in 1910 - in exercise of their
right to self-determination. The present regime in Pretoria can only be a party to
the negotiation of modalities for creating the necessary conditions for that
purpose. Any attempt to legitimise it as a lawful government of all the people or
relax sanctions against it will only encourage its intransigence, as past experience
shows.

The international community has the opportunity to contribute decisively at this

time to freedom in South Africa. But it must act collectively with a clear
-I
83

commitment to the principles which have crystallised in four decades of

discussions in the United Nations.

Public education at this time must focus on support for action to enable the people
of South Africa to exercise their right to self-determination in full freedom,
without the intrusion of any external interests except the interest of humanity to
secure the total elimination of apartheid. Education against apartheid can then
evolve into education for living together "in peace with one another as good
neighbours."
-I
84

PREREQUISITES OF A PEACEFUL SOLUTION IN SOUTH

AFRICA
Speech in the Ad Hoc Committee of the United Nations General Assembly,
16th special session, December 13, 1989

Mr. Chairman,

I wish to thank you and this Committee for the privilege to say a few words at this
special session.

I am happy to see you in the chair, having admired your contribution to the
movement of solidarity with the struggles for freedom in southern Africa.

We are now at a historic moment in the southern part of Africa because of the
heroic struggle of the people - under tremendous difficulties - and the
international response to the situation.

I would like to pay my tribute to the people of South Africa, to their liberation
movement and to the mass democratic movement for their courage, sacrifice and
statesmanship in an extremely protracted struggle.

For me, as a national of India, it has been particularly inspiring to follow the way
in which the mass democratic movement has developed and enriched the spirit of
satyagraha, the defiance of unjust laws, which Mahatma Gandhi discovered on
South African soil.

The United Nations, and its Special Committee against Apartheid, have played a
great role in promoting an international consensus and alliance against apartheid -
and for support to all those struggling in that country for a non-racial, democratic
State.

They deserve tribute for their untiring efforts and for their adherence to
fundamental principles.

I recall that at its inception in 1963, the Special Committee against Apartheid,
declared that the problem in South Africa is not a conflict between black and
white, but a struggle of all the people against racism.

The first Chairman of the Special Committee, the late Diallo Telli, said at the
inaugural meeting of the Committee that one of its tasks was to help the regime in
Pretoria to get out of the mire into which it had landed itself and the country.
-I
85

The intransigence of the racist regime and the short-sightedness of some major
Powers have forced the South African people and the frontline States to bear
enormous suffering - which has been a blot on the conscience of humanity.

Yet, Africa is a continent of reconciliation and the leaders of the democratic

movement have continued to uphold their vision of the future - and to eschew any
spirit of revenge.

The proposals for negotiations, formulated by the liberation movement, and

endorsed in the Harare Declaration, are so reasonable that it is difficult to
conceive anyone interested in a just and lasting settlement entertaining any
reservations.

At most they only ask for a return to the situation before the Sharpeville massacre
of 1960 - to provide conditions for fruitful negotiations.

How can there be meaningful negotiations if Nelson Mandela is in prison, Oliver

Tambo is in exile and other leaders are restricted - so that they cannot even con-
sult freely among themselves, much less with their people.

While Prime Minister de Klerk has taken some positive steps, repression
continues unabated.

There are more and more arrests, restrictions and political trials - even when De
Klerk talks of reconciliation - as I am painfully aware as a member of the Council
of Trustees of the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa.

Only they are not reported by the media.

I would like to stress, therefore, that while we should recognize and grasp the
opportunities, we should not be carried away by euphoria.

There must be continued effort by the international community.

Let us hope that this special session will conclude with an effective declaration
commanding widest support.

But that does not spare the South African people from the obligation to strengthen
their unity and expand their struggle - and they fully recognize that.

The international anti-apartheid movement must step up its work for

comprehensive sanctions and for greater support to the struggle - and we may
note that they are fully committed.

The United Nations must play a crucial role in this new situation - not only
because the destruction of apartheid is a vital interest of the United Nations but
-I
86

also to prevent the intrusion of Powers with their short-sighted "national

interests".

I have confidence that the Special Committee against Apartheid and the Centre
against Apartheid will discharge their responsibilities with commitment and
imagination that they have demonstrated.

As we have emphasized repeatedly, the issue in South Africa is not only freedom
in one country, but the assertion of fundamental principles which are indispens-
able for genuine international cooperation.

It is also the total emancipation of the continent of Africa, after centuries of

plunder, rape and humiliation.

Let us hope that soon, we, in the rest of the world, can join the African people in
celebrating that emancipation.

Let me conclude, therefore, with the slogan of the freedom movement in South
Africa:

Mayibuye Afrika (Come Back, Africa)

-I
87

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO SOUTH AFRICANS13

General

1. The effects of apartheid (and of racist domination before apartheid became

State policy in 1948) have been so serious - not only in terms of disparities - that
it will take a long time to overcome them. Substantial international assistance may
be needed for many years.

The transitional period - toward an interim national government and then non-
racial elections under a democratic constitution - will, let us hope, be brief, given
the necessary international action.

While assistance inside South Africa should be provided immediately - and

academic boycott formally ended - any plans for assistance will need to be
formulated for period of several years.

Many other countries in the world have less resources than South Africa and
pressing needs. Governments and public opinion will need to be persuaded that
the international community has an obligation to give special consideration for
South Africa.

2. The term "disadvantaged" is not identical with "Black", though most Blacks
have been the victims of discrimination. The United Nations cannot think in racial
terms in providing assistance.

The UNETPSA (United Nations Educational and Training Programme for

Southern Africans) was not established for "disadvantaged" Southern Africans
only, though it had to provide assistance mainly to Black students and exiles who
were deprived of educational opportunities under apartheid. (It began providing a
substantial number of scholarships for applicants from inside South Africa from
the early 1970s though the scholarships were tenable only at non-racial
institutions outside South Africa).

13
Paper presented to the Follow-up Conference on International Education Assistance to
Disadvantaged South Africans, United Nations, New York, 8-9 September 1992
-I
88

Moreover, apartheid is not merely a matter of disparities in incomes and

opportunities. Even white students have been deprived of proper education
because of segregation, censorship, distortion of textbooks and inculcation of
prejudice. In a sense, all South Africans are "disadvantaged". While bridging of
the gap is the main task, this aspect will also need to be kept in mind in order to
promote the transition to a truly non-racial society.

3. Under apartheid, South Africa has had segregated white, African, Coloured and
Indian educational institutions; the African institutions were even segregated by
ethnic group.

Major changes have taken place in recent years, primarily as a result of the
struggle of the faculties, students and communities. The Universities of the
Western Cape and Durban-Westville, for instance, are rapidly being transformed
into non-racial institutions. Their student enrolment is already more representative
of the population of the country than the enrolment at the "open" white
universities.

It is perhaps more appropriate to refer to institutions rapidly moving toward non-

racialism than of "Black" institutions.

Priorities

UNETPSA is to be commended for reviewing its priorities in the light of changes

in South Africa. It should not remain a scholarship agency, but should
increasingly be undertaking programmes to assist restructuring of education and
training in South Africa. It might consider assistance, if requested, for:

(a) An emergency programme for in-service training in other countries

in planning, public administration, management etc., not only in the
field of education.

Such in-service training cannot be only in the developed countries in

Europe and North America.

(b) Revision of textbooks and other educational materials.

For instance, the history books are still white-oriented. They are oriented
toward Europe, though the great majority of the population is of African or Asian
origin. (Perhaps more than four million South Africans can trace their ancestry to
-I
89

Asia and relations with Asia precede the Dutch settlement in 1652.)

There is a reference in the General Assembly resolution to "development of

learning material" but the urgent need for revision of textbooks deserves to be
specifically indicated.

Perhaps the time has come to terminate all scholarships abroad at secondary level
and to phase out scholarships for the first degree (except in certain professional
and technical fields) so that resources will be released for other programmes.

Because of its limited resources and the urgent need to help students in exile to
become self-supporting, UNETPSA gave priority to education toward the first
degree, and granted only a limited number of scholarships for post-graduate
training. At present, priority will need to be given to advanced and in-service
training, to international exchanges and to "institution-building". Perhaps the
terms of reference of UNETPSA should be revised.

Promotion and Coordination of Assistance

It may be difficult to conceive of "effective" co-ordination when many

governments are providing bilateral assistance (in consideration of their national
interests) and numerous agencies are undertaking assistance. The UNETPSA and
its Advisory Committee will need to consider whether they have the capacity to
"co-ordinate" and whether the donors wish their assistance to be "coordinated".

But there is a need for a clearinghouse for information on assistance, and a forum
for consultations. The UNETPSA and its Advisory Committee - in co-operation
with UNESCO and UNDP - are perhaps ideally suited to undertake this task.

To ensure effective action on the recommendations of this Conference, the United

Nations will need to give serious attention to follow-up. The Advisory Committee
on UNETPSA and the Special Committee against Apartheid should actively
promote international assistance.

The Special Committee against Apartheid has played a crucial role over the years
in promoting various forms of assistance to South Africans through diverse
channels. It should be persuaded to continue its contribution, especially since the
purposes are both political and educational.
-I
90

UNITED NATIONS AND ANTI-APARTHEID

MOVEMENTS
-I
91

TWENTY YEARS OF THE BRITISH ANTI-APARTHEID

MOVEMENT14

I bring you greetings - on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Anti-
Apartheid Movement - from the United Nations Centre against Apartheid and
from the Special Committee against Apartheid which has warmly welcomed this
event and had intended to send a delegation here.

The Special Committee and the Anti-Apartheid Movement have both been
established in response to the needs and requests of the national liberation
movement.

They have both recognised that the primary role in the struggle for liberation
belongs to the national liberation movement, and that their own work is
supportive.

They have both tried to build broadest support to the liberation struggle -
irrespective of differences on any other issues.

They have both moved ahead in response to the changing requirements of the
struggle, overcoming all distractions and pressures. Their work has been totally
complementary.

The United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity - together with anti-
apartheid movements, especially in countries which continue to collaborate with
the apartheid regime - form the core of the solidarity movement which today has
to meet immense challenges.

The Special Committee has for a long time recognised the Anti-Apartheid
Movement as the conscience of the British people and as an indispensable ally of
the United Nations.

14
Speech at Conference in London on the twentieth anniversary of the Movement, June 26, 1979
-I
92

It began effective co-operation with the Anti-Apartheid Movement soon after its
own establishment in l963. It has not only consulted the Movement on numerous
occasions and sent representatives to its meetings, but has repeatedly invited
representatives of the Movement to its own meetings, seminars and conferences.
Several of the leaders of the Movement were honoured guests of the Special
Committee and of the Nigerian Government at the World Conference for Action
against Apartheid held in Lagos in August 1977.

Even more important, many of the initiatives of the Special Committee have
resulted from consultations with the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

We have co-operated on numerous campaigns - from the World Campaign for the
Release of South African Political Prisoners at the time of the Rivonia Trial in
l963-64 to the recent launching of the World Campaign against Military and
Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa.

Three months ago, the Special Committee organised an important seminar on

nuclear collaboration with South Africa in co-operation with the Anti-Apartheid
Movement and in the next few months another important seminar on the role of
Transnational Corporations in southern Africa will be organised by the
Movement, at the request and in co-operation with the Special Committee

I will not reminisce on the past, but I must pay tribute to the Anti- Apartheid
Movement for its valuable and consistent support to the efforts of the United
Nations in the cause of African liberation.

Indeed, ever since 1968, the United Nations General Assembly and the Council of
Ministers of the OAU have repeatedly and formally commended the activities of
the anti-apartheid movements. So has the Non-aligned Movement.

I must, in particular, express our great appreciation to the many leaders of the
Anti-Apartheid Movement whom we have known and come to respect - people
like Bishop Ambrose Reeves, Barbara Castle, David Steele, Joan Lestor, Jeremy
Thorpe, David Ennals, Bob Hughes and Abdul Minty - as well as its officials
from Dorothy Roberts, Rosalynde Ainslee and Ethel de Keyser to Mike Terry and
his colleagues.

In paying tribute to the Anti-Apartheid Movement, we cannot but pay tribute to

the national liberation movement of South Africa - one of the noblest movements
-I
93

of this century, and a pioneer, an inspirer and often a guide to other liberation
movements.

It is the righteousness of its struggle, and the heroism and sacrifices of its
militants which have inspired a world-wide solidarity movement.

Where else can one find nobler documents of freedom than in the programmes of
the South African liberation movement? Where else can one find more inspiring
epics of freedom struggle than in the Defiance Campaign of 1952 and the
defiance of children after Soweto - not to go back to the Battle of Isandhlawana in
the last century?

But I would like to point out that if the liberation movement has its numerous
martyrs, the solidarity movement too has its own share of heroes.

Hundreds and thousands of people in many countries have gone to jail, or have
been subjected to assaults by the police or racists, or risked their careers, not to
speak of the sacrifices of their time and money because of their convictions. I
believe that on this occasion, we must also pay tribute to them, and be inspired by
them.

The movement of solidarity with the South African people has a long history.

The Pan African Movement - at its very inception here in London in 1900 - called
for international support to the rights and aspirations of the African people of
South Africa.

A solidarity movement developed in India long before the Indian Government

raised the South African problem in international forums in 19h6.

Freedom in South Africa was a major concern of the Garvey movement in the
United States and the Caribbean in the 1920s. The struggle in South Africa was
the foremost concern of the International Committee, later renamed Council on
African Affairs, established by Paul Robeson in 1937, until it was paralysed
during the cold war in 1951.

I recall my own participation in a demonstration in front of the South African

Consulate in New York in 1946 - under the leadership of Paul Robeson and Dr.
W.E.B. Du Bois - to protest the bloody suppression of the African mine labour
strike and the pegging act against the Indian community. It took place during the
-I
94

visit of a delegation of the African National Congress, led by its President, Dr.
Xuma, to the United Nations.

One can cite many other antecedents to the Anti-Apartheid Movement - most
notably the Defence and Aid Fund led by the Reverend Canon L. John Collins,
and the tireless labours of people like Lord Fenner Brockway.

But I believe that the Anti-Apartheid Movement - relatively young as it is, has
had a special role. Its experience in Britain, as well as the experiences of similar
movements which developed in many other countries, provide useful lessons for
future action.

I would like to recall briefly the situation in 1959 when this movement was
launched.

It was a time when the liberation movement - after the Defiance Campaign, the
Congress of the People, the Women’s anti-pass agitation and the resistance
against forced removals - was subjected to severe repression through the
notorious Treason Trial and the banning orders under the so-called Suppression of
Communism Act.

The liberation movement had spread throughout the country, in the cities as well
as the reserves, and had earned the right to recognition as the authentic
representative of the people. But the apartheid regime was determined to stifle it
by repression, and disorganise the people through the creation of so-called
homelands under headmen and chiefs.

At the same time, driven by cold war calculations, the major Western Powers had
reinforced their links with the apartheid regime. The Simonstown Agreements had
been concluded only a few years earlier. The Western media had constantly tried
to libel the liberation movement with the communist label.

It was in that context that the liberation movement appealed for support of decent
men and women abroad - particularly to deprive the apartheid regime of its
external support.

The sanctions resolutions of the Conferences of Independent African States and of

African peoples, organised by the late Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, were the African
response.
-I
95

The Anti-Apartheid Movement here, with its boycott campaign, was the response
in the West, and it helped establish anti-apartheid and solidarity groups in many
other countries.

The response from the United Nations was to come soon - with the 1962 General
Assembly resolution on sanctions, which established the Special Committee
against Apartheid.

The sanctions campaign was thus launched at a time when the liberation
movement was obliged by the apartheid regime to take the fateful decision to go
beyond non-violent and legal struggle.

Today, twenty years later, we face a new situation, after the tremendous
escalation of repression and resistance. Will the international community enable
the liberation movements of southern Africa to destroy the racist regimes and
emancipate the whole of the African continent - or will external forces allow the
apartheid regime to bring about a wider conflict?

The new stage of the crisis in southern Africa, and of the liberation struggle,
requires new strategies.

The United Nations and its Special Committee have called for an international
mobilisation against apartheid - to isolate the apartheid regime and to lend full
support to the national liberation movement, so that apartheid can be destroyed
and the threat to the peace averted. They have made this call after consultation
with the anti-apartheid movement and other public organisations.

I will only make some general comments on the international context.

In the past twenty years, as the solidarity movement developed at the

governmental and non-governmental level, the situation in South Africa itself has
grown from bad to worse.
There has been a great intensification of racist domination; the establishment of
bantustans; a series of obnoxious repressive laws; the massacres of Sharpeville
and Soweto; the executions of patriots from Vuyisile Mini to Solomon Mahlangu;
and the tortures and killings of eminent leaders in detention.

There has been a tremendous military build-up, accompanied by numerous acts of

aggression against independent African States. There is now the imminent danger
of acquisition of nuclear capability by the apartheid regime.
-I
96

Some people tend to feel despondent that the solidarity activities have been in
vain. I believe that is very wrong. We should not underestimate the tremendous
victories of the international campaign against apartheid.

The unanimous condemnation of apartheid by the international community -

however hypocritical or superficial in the case of some - is of no small
significance.

The arms embargo against South Africa, the funds for assistance to the oppressed
people and the international convention against apartheid have hardly any
precedents in history.

Here, in the United Kingdom, the abrogation of the Simonstown Agreements -

essentially because of public pressure - was not an insignificant achievement.

I see the "Muldergate scandal," above all, as a tribute to the international

campaign, and a sign of decadence in the apartheid regime.

We must recognise the growth of the anti-apartheid forces in the past twenty years
and of their potential strength, if they are mobilised and concerted. Africa is no
more a colonial preserve.
The climate in Western European countries is very different from that in 1959
when they were still fighting colonial wars or had not become reconciled to the
loss of colonies.

Even the major Western Powers are conscious that their economic interests in
independent Africa are more important than their stake in apartheid.

Ever since the debacle of the apartheid regime and the Western secret services in
Angola, and especially since the Soweto massacre, there have been frantic
attempts to stem the tide of revolution in southern Africa. The recent trends in
some Western countries, and the resurgence of racist lobbies, are certainly a cause
for concern.

It seems that some powerful politicians here and in the United States would like to
hitch the future of their countries to the fortunes of the apartheid regime, and
violate solemn commitments in the United Nations.
-I
97

We must, of course, persist in our efforts to persuade everyone to join the

campaign against apartheid.

But the struggle for liberation cannot wait until all the racists, the militarists and
the profiteers from apartheid see the light. The anti-apartheid forces must be
mobilised to block the overt and covert alliances with apartheid.

Public opinion in the Western countries must be made aware that the forces which
seek to cement links with apartheid are a menace to the future of their own
countries. They endanger the survival of the Commonwealth, weaken the United
Nations, risk the growing economic relations with African countries and create a
gulf between their countries and vast regions of the world.
They are also building a Frankenstein which may well become a menace to
themselves, as Nazism was exactly forty years ago.

Twenty years is a short time, but these past twenty years have been too long a
time for the oppressed people of South Africa to suffer increasing tyranny while
other African countries became free. It is too long a time for the non-fulfilment of
the decisions of the United Nations.

But perhaps no time is lost. Twenty or thirty years ago, the African people asked
for little more than consultation by their rulers, the abrogation of some racist laws,
and the beginnings of a move towards democracy.

Today, they are struggling for much more - the total destruction of the apartheid
system and the transfer of power to the people.

The time lost will be made up in the speed and extent of transformation of the
South African society.

Solomon Mahlangu, who was born around the same time as the Anti-Apartheid
Movement, has become symbolic of the spirit of the liberation movement today.
His last testament calls on us to rally all the potential strength of anti-apartheid
forces - among the governments, in the trade unions and churches, in the
campuses, among the communities of African origin all over the world - and
wield it for a decisive confrontation with apartheid and its allies.

The United Nations, the OAU and the anti-apartheid movements will need to
retool their strategies and structures, in co-operation with the liberation
movements, for this international mobilisation against apartheid.
-I
98

STRATEGY FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION IN SUPPORT

OF THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Role of cooperation between the UN Special Committee against Apartheid

and the Anti-Apartheid Movements: Some observations15

Present Phase of the Struggle and the Main Tasks

The present phase of the struggle in South Africa since last year is different from
the earlier phases - for instance, in 1952, 1960 or 1976.

The forces of liberation are not involved in a campaign for partial demands, but
determined to end apartheid and the apartheid regime. There is a combination of
non-violent, underground and armed struggles and a mobilisation of all segments
of the population.

In 1952, 1960 and 1976, the racist regime was able to stabilise the situation by an
escalation of repression and violence, combined with promises of so-called
“changes,” and with the direct or indirect assistance of external forces.
International action was totally inadequate.

The common responsibility of the Special Committee and the anti-apartheid

movements is to assist the forces of liberation to make such “stabilisation”
impossible. It is to keep up the momentum of international action, commensurate
with the struggle in South Africa, to secure the total elimination of apartheid.

The road to disaster in South Africa has been paved with so-called “reforms” by
the racist regime. Such “reforms” were not merely inadequate or irrelevant, but
were means to divert attention from repression and entrenchment of apartheid.

In the early 1960s, United Nations documents referred to “dissuading” the South
African regime from apartheid or persuading it to “abandon” apartheid. The
Special Committee rejected that concept many years ago, recognising the racist
regime as incorrigible and refrained from appeals to that regime.

15
Paper presented to a special meeting held by the Special Committee on November 25, 1985, for
consultations with anti-apartheid groups
-I
99

Genuine supporters of the liberation movement can have no agenda for “reforms”
or changes by the Pretoria regime.

The demand of the solidarity forces must be for an end to racist violence and
repression, release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, abrogation of
bans on ANC, PAC and other organisations and negotiations with the leaders of
liberation struggle, as the genuine representatives of the people, for the total
elimination of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial democratic society.
The modalities of transformation are for the liberation forces to negotiate. If the
racist regime is unwilling to seek a negotiated solution, the alternative is
continued struggle to overthrow that regime, and the international community
must be prepared to provide all necessary assistance to the forces of liberation.

Recent International Action

There has been significant international action against apartheid in the past year.
For the first time, several Western governments have taken national measures
beyond the arms embargo, including economic measures.

The most dramatic economic impact on South Africa has, however, resulted from
the decision of some major financial institutions to stop credits to South Africa.

While committed governments have contributed to the progress in international

action, the most significant actions have resulted from the struggle in South
Africa and the activities of anti-apartheid forces in the West.

The events have demonstrated the crucial importance of public action in Western
countries, and the key role of anti-apartheid movements, and other non-
governmental organisations.

International action in the past year has, however, been inadequate. Actions by
governments have been very limited; many Western governments have taken
hardly any action; and the United Kingdom and the United States indicate that
they will not take further action.

It is equally essential to note that the objectives indicated by some governments

are at variance with those of the Special Committee and the anti-apartheid
movements. They seek “reforms” by the regime. They even advocate negotiations
-I
100

between the racist regime and so-called “moderate” blacks, isolating the main
forces of liberation as “terrorist.”

The joint task of the Special Committee and the anti-apartheid movements is both
to ensure a momentum of international action and to counter any manoeuvres to
promote so-called negotiations without the main forces of liberation.

It must also be pointed out that the level of international assistance to the
oppressed people and their liberation movements and other organisations has been
disappointing.

Voluntary contributions to the United Nations funds have been stagnant or even
declining. The reasons must be looked into.

Very few Western governments - even those which claim to be most supportive -
provide assistance to the struggle. Some - even those which gave assistance to
other liberation movements in Africa - do not assist the South African
movements: they seem to regard the racist regime as legitimate and not to
recognise the legitimacy of the struggle. It must be made clear to them that
assistance to the struggle - not mere humanitarian or educational assistance to the
victims of repression - is the test of commitment against apartheid.

Role of the Special Committee against Apartheid

Soon after its establishment in 1963, the Special Committee became a focal point
for international action against apartheid.

(I will not detail the great accomplishments of the Special Committee since I had
occasion to refer to them in my farewell tribute to it on March 22, 1985).

I must emphasise, however, that the effectiveness of the Special Committee

depended not only on the soundness of its policies and its dedication, but very
much on its support to and cooperation with anti-apartheid movements and other
organisations.

(Many of the advances in international action were due to the efforts of anti-
apartheid movements: the Special Committee can only claim credit for
encouraging them. Major campaigns were generally initiated by “grass-roots”
organisations after consultations between them and the Special Committee; they
were not invented in the United Nations.)
-I
101

The Special Committee helped to promote cooperation and co-ordination between

the committed governments (and OAU) and the anti-apartheid movements. It
made diplomatic efforts to reinforce the public campaigns, in consultation with
the anti-apartheid movements, and thereby promoted governmental action.

The Special Committee, the committed governments and anti-apartheid

movements must be seen as allies in the struggle.

In view of some clichés in some recent statements, I must also emphasise that the
Special Committee has never followed a “piece-meal approach” and that no
United Nations body has been more activist, and more concerned with results,
than the Special Committee.

The comprehensive programme formulated by the Special Committee in

1966, when it called for the international campaign against apartheid, is
still very valid and impressive. It was reinforced by the concept of
“international mobilisation against apartheid” after the Lagos Conference in
1977, and the programmes of action formulated in 1976 and 1983 in consultation
with committed governments and anti-apartheid movements.

It had, of course, to decide on priorities and possibilities at every stage. The

question is whether it has been able to rise to the occasion in the recent past when
the struggle in South Africa and the solidarity movement advanced to new levels.

Reference must be made to the Centre against Apartheid when considering the
role of the Special Committee, especially because of some confusion among anti-
apartheid movements.

The Special Committee is the political body of the United Nations with a wide
mandate: the Centre is a Secretariat unit of civil servants which assists the
Committee.

The Centre is under the authority of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General

has not advocated or supported sanctions against South Africa or armed struggle
by the forces of liberation or the overthrow of the apartheid regime. The Centre
by itself cannot go beyond the positions taken by the Secretary-General.

Fortunately, the Special Committee was able to secure decisions by the General
Assembly since 1966 that the Centre should function under the guidance of, or in
-I
102

consultation with, the Special Committee. That has enabled the Centre to provide
effective services to the Special Committee, but the limitations of the Centre as a
Secretariat unit must be recognised.

If the Special Committee, by default, leaves policy matters or even significant

decisions on implementation to the Centre, the results can be very negative.

The Special Committee is composed of 18 member States from different regions

and with different ideologies. The member states have differences of view on
action against apartheid. It is to the great credit of the Special Committee, and its
leadership, that it has never had a vote and was able to function effectively. It is
also to its credit, and to that of the committed Secretariat staff, that the Centre has
acquired a reputation.

Role of Cooperation of the Special Committee with the Liberation Movements

and the Anti-apartheid Movements

The Special Committee was the first United Nations body formally to recognise
that the primary responsibility for liberation belongs to the liberation movements
and that its own role was secondary and supportive. It treated representatives of
liberation movements not as petitioners, but with respect as honoured guests.

Since 1974, the ANC and PAC have attended the meetings of the Special
Committee as observers. The main significance of this was not in terms of status -
as that was soon granted by the General Assembly itself - but in enabling the
Special Committee to function much more effectively in supporting the liberation
struggle and in extending cooperation with anti-apartheid movements.
Regrettably, this has not always happened.

The Special Committee was also the first United Nations body to treat non-
governmental organisations (especially anti-apartheid movements) not as
petitioners, but as partners in action. It organised many joint conferences and
activities with them, and elected leaders of anti-apartheid movements as officers
of such conferences.

As indicated earlier, the effectiveness of the Special Committee has depended

very much on cooperation with non-governmental organisations.

One aspect of this cooperation was the fact that the Special Committee has never
depended solely on the Centre against Apartheid for services.
-I
103

Many of the documents and publications of the Special Committee (and, on its
decision, of the Centre) were prepared by leaders of liberation movements and
anti-apartheid movements. A number of conferences and seminars were organised
for the Special Committee by anti-apartheid groups. Leaders of anti-apartheid
movements briefed chairmen of the Committee on several missions and even
accompanied him. Many of the provisions of United Nations resolutions were
formulated by anti-apartheid movements.

The Special Committee even promoted establishment of centres outside the

United Nations when it felt that the Centre against Apartheid, because of its
limitations, could not effectively undertake day-to-day work on certain matters.
The World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South
Africa is an example of an essential complement to United Nations units.

The Special Committee has also enlisted the cooperation of many individual
experts. Some of them were engaged as consultants or temporary staff, but many
others assisted out of goodwill and commitment.

This has in no way detracted from the role of the Centre. The Centre, in fact,
assisted the Special Committee in obtaining co-operation of organisations and
individuals outside. It was itself able to perform remarkably with a very small
staff for many years.

Some problems have arisen in the past several years. I refer to “several years”
since I cannot shirk responsibility for my inability to deal with the problems,
particularly the problem of bureaucratisation.

One of the main contributions of the Special Committee for many years was to
publicise the appeals, statements, declarations and memoranda by the liberation
movements and anti-apartheid movements all over the world. This is not being
done at all. Even a joint appeal by the Presidents of ANC and SWAPO on the oil
embargo was not published, not to mention numerous other important documents
of the struggle.

The Special Committee has performed a very important role by publicising non-
governmental action against apartheid, by assisting anti-apartheid movements to
meet and consult on action, by helping internationalise national campaigns and by
promoting implementation of decisions by anti-apartheid movements on
coordinated campaigns. It had the staff and financial resources, the facilities of
-I
104

United Nations offices around the world and other advantages to perform this task
more effectively than other bodies.

Its effectiveness in this respect appears to have declined when the need was
greater. The declarations of its own conferences are not sent to anti-apartheid
movements and there has been little follow-up. Several opportunities to promote
concerted public action have been missed.

The tendency to regard the Special Committee or the Centre as a "funding" or

"donor" agency, and the anti-apartheid groups as recipients, is harmful.

There are two sources of funds: the modest Trust Fund for Publicity against
Apartheid (administered by the Centre in consultation with the Special
Committee) and the special allocation received by the Special Committee from
the United Nations budget for special projects.

The Centre cannot by itself make decisions on grants from these funds so that no
Secretariat official can impose his views or preferences.

Anti-apartheid movements helped publish information material at a fraction of the

normal cost of United Nations material and distributed it more effectively. The
cost to anti-apartheid movements for distribution of United Nations publications
has been a severe burden on their meagre resources.

The special allocation is specifically for projects of the Special Committee. Most
of it has been used for conferences. In some cases, anti-apartheid groups have
been given grants to organise the conferences in cooperation with the Special
Committee.

The anti-apartheid groups depend on volunteers or on staff who work on

miserable salaries because of their commitment. In the case of many conferences,
the contribution in kind of anti-apartheid groups has been greater than the
financial contribution of the United Nations, not to mention the quality of work.

Some Priorities and Suggestions for 1986

I will be very brief in this Section since the main contribution will need to come
from anti-apartheid movements.
-I
105

The highest priority will need to be given to sanctions, and to pressure for action
by the major Western Powers.

But it must be noted that the actions taken by governments are very uneven. Some
of the smaller countries - even those which have been most supportive and which
have non-conservative governments - have taken hardly any action. The
governments are lagging behind the public.

When inter-governmental bodies like the EEC or Commonwealth decide on

action, it is generally assumed that their Member States have promptly
implemented the decisions. That is not always the case.

It is essential that the Special Committee, in cooperation with the Centre and anti-
apartheid movements, should monitor the actions constantly.

It would be useful if briefs were prepared on each Western country. The Special
Committee should then approach the delegations of governments which have
failed to take meaningful action, or visit the capitals, and publicise resistance to
action. This should be done in close cooperation with anti-apartheid movements,
committed Parliamentarians etc.

Second, as indicated earlier, the Special Committee should emphasise the role of
liberation movements as the main force for genuine change and combat
manoeuvres to seek solutions without their participation in a leading role.

Third, the Special Committee should consult anti-apartheid movements on

projects for the year, and decide on any financial allocations in that context.
Special attention may be given to internationalising the national campaigns, with
active support by the Special Committee.

Fourth, conferences are of little value unless there is adequate consultation on

purposes and preparatory arrangements, and sufficient follow-up work.

The missions of the Special Committee also need careful planning or they may
become counter-productive. While some goodwill missions are appropriate, most
missions should be planned with a view to concrete results.

The anti-apartheid movements might perhaps be consulted on the 1986 plan for
conferences and missions.
-I
106

Fifth, the Special Committee should discuss the means to develop the level of its
activities in the light of the advance of the struggle in South Africa and the
solidarity movement. For instance, when developments are taking place rapidly,
leisurely pace of publications, communications etc., can only undermine the
reputation of the Special Committee.

Finally, while consulting on activities for 1986 - and the modalities of cooperation
and co-ordination between the Special Committee and anti-apartheid movements -
it would be useful to consider what can be effectively done by the United Nations
and what requires special arrangements or focal points outside the United Nations.
-I
107

ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT AND THE UNITED

NATIONS: PARTNERS IN THE INTERNATIONAL
CAMPAIGN AGAINST APARTHEID16

I think of the 'anti-apartheid movement' as a coalition of anti-apartheid

organisations and individuals, as well as a growing number of governments,
which in the 1960s was able to secure the active involvement of the United
Nations, the Commonwealth, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organisation of
African Unity (OAU) and many other international organisations. This was a
coalition which encompassed the world and consisted of international, regional,
national and local bodies. It developed a broad range of actions from public
boycotts to UN sanctions, from the provision of humanitarian assistance to
refugees to military and non-military assistance to the liberation movement.

I can think of no other coalition of this scope, of no other campaign that was
carried on so long and with such persistence, and of no other cause for which so
many people in so many countries made such sacrifices. This broad coalition
played a crucial role in the liberation of South Africa from apartheid. Recognition
of this fact in no way detracts from the struggle of the South African people,
because this great international movement could not have developed without the
vision and statesmanship of the leaders of the liberation movement and without
the struggle which they led.

In this solidarity movement it can be said without exaggeration that the Anti-
Apartheid Movement in Britain and its leaders played a very significant role, both
at the national and international level, and had a greater impact than its members
perhaps realise. That is why the AAM became the target of South African
intelligence and terrorism more than any group other than the liberation
movement.

The meeting at Holborn Hall on 26 June 1959, which launched the international
boycott of South Africa, received little media attention, but the spread of boycott
actions in Britain helped make South Africa a major political issue within a few
months.

16
Paper presented to the Symposium on “The Anti-Apartheid Movement: a 40-year Perspective,”
London, June 26, 1999
-I
108

AAM started its international work early in its life – developing contacts and
promoting the establishment of anti-apartheid groups in other West European
countries; lobbying the Commonwealth in 1960–61 and the International Olympic
Committee in 1962; launching the World Campaign for the Release of South
African Political Prisoners in 1963; and organising the International Conference
on Sanctions against South Africa in 1964. Its campaigns for peoples' boycotts,
government sanctions and the arms embargo soon spread far beyond the borders
of Britain.

London was an important centre for many reasons. Because of historical links and
the Commonwealth connection, there was a greater awareness in Britain than
elsewhere of the situation in South Africa; opposition to racism and apartheid had
developed over the years, despite collaboration with apartheid by the government
and by vested interests. There was greater access to news from South Africa, and
more personal contact with South Africans. Some of the British churchmen who
had served in South Africa became fervent opponents of apartheid and South
African exiles in Britain were active in seeking support for the freedom
movement. Britain was by far the most important economic partner and supplier
of arms to South Africa, so that public opinion in Britain was particularly
important. And London was an important centre for the dissemination of
information, especially to Commonwealth countries, and for approaches to
Commonwealth governments.

The development of relations between the Anti-Apartheid Movement and the

United Nations from 1964 or 1965 enhanced the AAM's international impact
during a period when the AAM had hardly any resources to devote to
international work. It helped the AAM to develop close relations with the OAU
and contacts with many governments. The AAM, in turn, contributed significantly
to the effectiveness of the United Nations, and especially of its Special Committee
against Apartheid, in its anti-apartheid activities.

The UN Special Committee against Apartheid was established by a General

Assembly resolution of 6 November 1962, and held its first meeting on 2 April
1963. That was a few days after Harold Wilson, the leader of the Labour Party,
called for an arms embargo against South Africa at an AAM rally in Trafalgar
Square. None of the Western countries accepted membership in the Special
Committee because it had been created by a General Assembly resolution which
had called for economic and other sanctions against South Africa; it was the first
UN committee to be boycotted by the West.
-I
109

The Special Committee, however, was able to use its composition to become an
activist, rather than a deliberative, organ and a lobby for the liberation movement,
and to build up wide support for a programme of action against apartheid. It
enjoyed the confidence of a large majority in the General Assembly, so that it was
often seen as the voice of the United Nations, though the UN could not take
effective action on sanctions.

It was during the Sanctions Conference held in London in April 1964 that a
delegation of the UN Special Committee first met the leaders of the AAM. It held
hearings at Church House, where Barbara Castle, then AAM's President, spoke,
and was accompanied by Abdul Minty. The Special Committee made a detailed
report on the Sanctions Conference to the General Assembly and the Security
Council.

In the general election of October 1964, the Labour Party was returned to power
and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister. The new government announced an
arms embargo against South Africa, as the United States had done in 1963. It soon
became clear that the major Western Powers were not prepared to take any further
action against the South African regime. Britain and the US were not even
prepared to exert pressure on France and other countries which profited by
replacing them as sources of military equipment for South Africa. We were faced
with a deadlock on sanctions – and paralysis if sanctions were our only objective
at the United Nations.

I was not convinced that all our efforts should be focused on sanctions, so I
promoted information activity, assistance to political prisoners and their families,
scholarships for South Africans, etc. In 1966, I formulated the concept of 'an
international campaign against apartheid under the auspices of the United
Nations'. It was approved by the Special Committee and endorsed by the General
Assembly, and served as a broad framework for action against apartheid from
then on.

The strategy was to press for a range of measures to isolate the regime, support
the liberation movement and inform world public opinion; to continue pressing
for effective sanctions as the only means for a peaceful solution, and at the same
time to obtain action on other measures which could be decided by a majority
vote in the General Assembly; to isolate the major trading partners of South
Africa by persuading other Western countries to co-operate in action to the
greatest feasible extent; and to find ways to promote public opinion and public
action against apartheid, especially in the countries which were the main
-I
110

collaborators with the South African regime. This also meant that we built the
broadest support for each measure, thereby welcoming co-operation rather than
alienating governments and organisations which were not yet prepared to support
sanctions or armed struggle. I had been in frequent consultation with the ANC and
the AAM and this strategy emerged from the consultations, though the
formulation was entirely mine and the text was not cleared with them.
In June 1968, the UN Special Committee held its first session outside UN
headquarters – in Stockholm, London and Geneva. The AAM helped to organise
the London meetings at Friends House, arranged for the participation of many
British organisations and individuals, and presented memoranda. The proposals
which emerged in the consultations were reflected in the UN General Assembly
resolution later that year, and in the programme of the Special Committee.

From that time the British AAM became, in effect, the closest non-governmental
associate of the Special Committee. This co-operation was without precedent in
relations between the UN and non-governmental organisations. The Special
Committee sent letters of support for AAM campaigns whenever requested. It
sent representatives to conferences and other events organised by the AAM and
often sent representatives to London for consultations. The UN was a convenient
place for the AAM to send petitions. The Special Committee not only granted
hearings to AAM representatives, but invited them to its conferences, seminars
and other events, providing fares and expenses. They were allowed full rights of
participation, along with government representatives, and were often elected as
officers of conferences and seminars. These events enabled the anti-apartheid
movements from different countries to meet and consult on internationalising
campaigns. The contacts made with governments were often useful. The major
conferences also occasionally provided an opportunity to confront the
governments of major Western powers. A number of the publications of the UN
Centre against Apartheid were prepared by AAM or by consultants recommended
by AAM. Many of the provisions of UN resolutions originated from suggestions
made by the AAM.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement in Britain helped the Special Committee to meet

other British organisations and develop contacts with anti-apartheid groups in
other countries. As the AAM was in closer contact with South Africa than the UN
Secretariat, it was a useful source of information.

I must make special mention of Abdul Minty. He was invited to many

conferences and seminars of the United Nations, and even to assist missions of the
Special Committee, as his advice was highly valued. He became one of the few
-I
111

individuals who was invited to speak in the Security Council and to its committee
on the arms embargo. I believe that close association with the Special Committee
enabled Abdul Minty to widen his contacts with governments. The AAM was
able, through him, to make an input into the decisions and work of UN agencies,
the OAU, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Commonwealth. In 1979 Abdul
Minty established the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear
Collaboration with South Africa, with the support of the AAM and the
encouragement of the Special Committee. The World Campaign was the UN's
main source of information on violations of the arms embargo. Without it, the
arms embargo would have been much less effective.

On other issues, our day-to-day contact with the AAM from about 1976 was
through Mike Terry. The UN and the AAM co-operated in organising seminars
and conferences, and producing publications and other campaign material; they
also co-operated on the observance of Nelson Mandela's 60th birthday in 1978
and on the 'Free Mandela' campaign. I consulted Mike on many other campaigns
and he was responsible for several UN resolutions and actions. Sometimes
suggestions came from me and the AAM responded with imagination. Sometimes
suggestions came from the AAM and we tried to do all we could to obtain action
by the UN and to internationalise campaigns.

I mentioned that Britain was the main area of anti-apartheid action in the 1960s.
In the 1970s it became clear that United States policy was the main hindrance to
international action against apartheid because the US viewed the South African
problem in the context of the Cold War. It was essential for a peaceful solution, or
a solution with the least violence, to persuade the US to revise its policy and, as
the leader of the Western countries, to promote concerted action. Some hopeful
trends during the Carter administration (1976–1980) were followed by a virtual
alliance with the apartheid regime during the Reagan administration under the
guise of 'constructive engagement'. The Botha regime found it possible to
destabilise neighbouring African States with impunity, causing enormous losses
in human life and infrastructure.

Even during this period the AAM continued to play an important role because of
its experience and international contacts. The US became increasingly isolated
when it tried to protect the apartheid regime. A turning point was reached in 1984
with the resurgence of the movement in South Africa, the massive demonstrations
against Botha in Britain and Western Europe and the launch of the Free South
Africa Movement in the United States.
-I
112

United Nations Assistance to AAM

In 1967 the Special Committee received a letter from the Anti-Apartheid

Movement's Treasurer, Tony O'Dowd, requesting financial assistance. I replied, in
a private letter to the AAM, that there was no possibility of a grant and that in any
case I would not support one. The AAM had relied mainly on volunteers and I felt
that if it got large grants its spirit would be lost and that it might collapse when
the funds stopped. That was my personal view based on experience in India and
on what I had observed in the United States.

In those days the AAM had hardly any funds. On one of my frequent visits to the
AAM office I observed that they had a table with only three legs; the UN
documents we supplied them with were substituting for the fourth leg.
Distribution of UN publications had become a burden on their finances. More
than ten years later, we found a way to make small grants to national anti-
apartheid movements and other organisations for publicity material and for
conferences and seminars organised by them in co-operation with the Special
Committee. The British AAM was given funds for arranging several conferences
and seminars and for producing pamphlets and posters. This was no subvention as
the AAM staff contributed their labour, and the costs were therefore far less than
if the UN had undertaken the task.

One of the problems in carrying on the international campaign against apartheid

was the recognition by the OAU of two liberation movements – the African
National Congress and the Pan-Africanist Congress – and the demand of the PAC
for equality in every respect with the ANC. This affected discussions on many
projects after the two movements were granted observer status at the UN and
began to participate in meetings of the Special Committee. The PAC tried to use
the Special Committee to exert pressure on anti-apartheid movements. Though
this retarded co-operation between the Special Committee and anti-apartheid
movements in the 1980s, more serious problems were averted as it became
increasingly clear that the ANC was the main force in the struggle for liberation.

The UN Special Committee and the Anti-Apartheid Movement both recognised

that the primary role in the struggle for liberation belonged to the national
liberation movement and that their own work was supportive. They were able to
establish a close relationship because of the following special circumstances: the
Special Committee had a greater freedom of action because of the absence of
Western and some other members; it was allowed leeway because of the general
opposition to apartheid; and the Special Committee showed great wisdom in using
its opportunities.
-I
113

The partnership between the UN and the Anti-Apartheid Movement influenced

other

UN bodies to develop closer and more meaningful relations with non-

governmental organisations. The importance of these organisations is now
increasingly recognised by the UN and by governments.

The Special Committee and the AAM played an important role in isolating the
South African regime, challenging its legitimacy and securing world-wide support
for the liberation movement. In the course of a long struggle, when the situation in
South Africa was constantly getting worse, they were not frustrated or dispirited,
but persisted in their campaigns with faith that liberation would be won. They
helped keep the issue alive during a difficult period – the decade after the Rivonia
trial – when the movement had to re-establish underground structures shattered by
repression and to organise open and clandestine action in South Africa. They
countered moves in major Western countries to assist the South African regime
after the collapse of Portuguese colonialism and the resurgence of the liberation
struggle in South Africa.

Without the work of the national anti-apartheid movements, and their co-
operation with the UN Special Committee, the OAU and other international
bodies, support for the liberation movement might have been confined to non-
aligned and Communist countries. The struggle would have been much harder and
would have required even greater sacrifices.

Progress made in international action was often due to anti-apartheid movements

in Western countries. The abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement, South
Africa's only military agreement, was, for instance, mainly due to a campaign by
the AAM. Because of the development of public opinion, governments changed
their attitudes and co-operated in international action, or were at least prevented
from veering to the other side. This process gradually changed the balance of
forces against apartheid.
-I
114

UNITED NATIONS AND THE NTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN

AGAINST APARTHEID: PARTNERS IN THE STRUGGLE
FOR LIBERATION17

It is perhaps a mere coincidence that the substantive sessions of this conference

begin on October 11, 2004, the 41st anniversary of the United Nations General
Assembly resolution calling on South Africa to abandon the Rivonia Trial,
unconditionally release all political prisoners and end repression of persons
opposing apartheid. That resolution, adopted by 106 votes, with only the apartheid
regime of South Africa voting against, was a landmark in United Nations action in
support of freedom in South Africa. The anniversary of that resolution was
observed by the United Nations and many governments from 1973 as the “Day of
Solidarity with the South African Political Prisoners”.

Though racial discrimination in South Africa was on the agenda of the United
Nations since 1946 – and apartheid since 1952 - it had been difficult for many
years, because of the resistance of Western Powers, to secure a condemnation of
apartheid or any sanctions against the Pretoria regime. The position began to
change in the 1960s with the cycle of repression and resistance in South Africa,
the anti-colonial revolutions in Asia and Africa, the establishment of the
Organisation of African Unity and the growing public opinion against apartheid
all over the world, including the Western countries. The near-unanimous adoption
of the resolution of October 11, 1963, was a tribute to the tireless work of anti-
apartheid movements18 and other organisations which helped persuade the
reluctant governments to join with the vast majority of Member States in
condemning the brutality of the apartheid regime.

To persuade these governments to move beyond verbal condemnation of

apartheid repression to meaningful action to assist the South African people to
eliminate apartheid – particularly to impose comprehensive sanctions as requested
by the liberation movement – required a protracted and difficult struggle during
which a powerful and growing coalition emerged. It encompassed, already by

17
Paper presented to the “Conference on International Anti-Apartheid Movements in South
Africa’s Freedom Struggle: Lessons for Today” at International Convention Centre, Durban,
October 10-13, 2004
18
Numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) around the world – international, regional
and local – contributed to the struggle against apartheid. I use the term “anti-apartheid
movements” to refer to organisations in Western countries and Japan, whatever their name, which
dealt solely or primarily with southern Africa and campaigned against collaboration by their
governments with the South African regime.
-I
115

1963, the governments and peoples of non-aligned and third world countries and
Socialist States, as well as large segments of people in the Western countries and
other trading partners of South Africa. It included inter-governmental
organisations such as the United Nations and its family of agencies, the
Movement of Non-aligned Countries, and the Organisation of African Unity, and
numerous non-governmental institutions and organisations such as trade unions,
churches, organisations of students and youth, sports bodies etc., as well as many
writers, artists, musicians, sportspersons and other individuals. Oliver Tambo,
President of the African National Congress, used to stress that they were all
“partners in the struggle”.

Anti-apartheid movements, especially in major Western countries, which

mobilised the people to confront and press their governments to abandon their
collaboration with apartheid South Africa and join the rest of the world in support
of a democratic South Africa played a very significant role in this coalition. The
Anti-apartheid Movement in Britain, as well as the American Committee on
Africa and TransAfrica in the United States, deserve particular mention because
of the scope of their activities in the two countries which, because of their
economic and strategic interests in South Africa, were crucial for the
international efforts to eliminate apartheid.

The movement reached a new level after the United Nations decided on an
international campaign against apartheid and took active steps to promote a
world-wide campaign.

The Special Committee against Apartheid of the United Nations (assisted by the
Centre against Apartheid), the Organisation of African Unity and the anti-
apartheid movements led the efforts to broaden the coalition against apartheid. As
a result of their diplomatic and political action, most of the smaller Western
countries, led by the Nordic States, began to support sanctions against the
apartheid regime and to provide substantial assistance to the struggle for freedom.

In the United States and Britain, while the Reagan and Thatcher administrations
persisted in protecting the Pretoria regime from United Nations sanctions, public
demands for action greatly increased. Many States and cities, as well trade unions,
churches, universities etc., imposed “people’s sanctions” against South Africa,
ultimately forcing the national governments to fall in line.
-I
116

This movement grew into the strongest international solidarity movement of the
twentieth century. It spread to all regions of the world, thanks to the efforts of the
United Nations and other international bodies.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., speaking in New York on Human
Rights Day in 1965 on action against apartheid, had called for “an international
alliance of peoples of all nations against racism”. Referring to the “international
potential of non-violence” which had not yet been employed, he suggested that
the people utilise non-violence through a massive international boycott. This was
achieved by the peoples of the world by overcoming the strong resistance of the
allies of apartheid.

The contribution of international solidarity to the liberation of South Africa has

been recognised by the African National Congress. In his opening speech to the
International Solidarity Conference in Johannesburg on February 19, 1993, Oliver
Tambo said:

“To those of the participants who have come from outside South Africa,
we say you are here today because by your actions you have brought the
system of apartheid to its knees…

“…this broad movement against apartheid struck a mighty blow against

the system of apartheid, gave enormous strength to our liberation
movement, sustained and helped to free those who were in prison,
maintained those who were in exile… and has brought us to the point
where we can now say that victory is in sight”.

Mention must be made of the crucial contribution of Oliver Tambo to the

development of this movement. He embodied the vision of a non-racial,
democratic South Africa built by a united struggle of people of all racial origins.
By his integrity, vision and statesmanship, he earned the respect and confidence
of numerous people in governments and in public life. He was most persuasive in
conveying the message that the struggle against apartheid deserved the
participation of governments and peoples all over the world.

I am, therefore, glad that the South African government has instituted an “Order
of Oliver Tambo” to recognise the leaders of the solidarity movement 19 and that
this Conference is devoted to discussion of the historic role of the movement.

19
I would humbly suggest that the distinction between gold medals and silver medals be
abandoned soon as it is invidious to place a greater value on the contribution of governmental
-I
117

An Overview of People’s Action against Apartheid

It is essential to recall the development of the people’s movement against

apartheid, as it preceded and inspired the United Nations to launch an
international campaign.

Before the Second World War, there was hardly any media attention or public
concern in the world for the brutality of racism in South Africa. Dr. W.E.B.
DuBois and Marcus Garvey, the great African-American leaders, had denounced
racist oppression in South Africa and assisted representatives of the African
National Congress, as did Fenner Brockway, leader of the anti-colonial movement
in Britain. But even massacres of Africans in South Africa went unnoticed by the
mainstream press.

The United Nations did not undertake any information activity against apartheid
or establish contacts with anti-apartheid groups until the Special Committee
against Apartheid began its work in 1963. No representative of the liberation
movement or anti-apartheid movements was heard until then by United Nations
bodies.

But a number of groups were formed around the world since 1946, by people
inspired by the non-violent mass struggle in South Africa, to inform the public
about the situation in South Africa and promote sympathy for the oppressed
people and their freedom movement. They included many pacifist churchmen and
others who had been active in support of the freedom of India and other colonies.
We may recall some of the pioneers of this movement such as the Reverend
Michael Scott, Father Trevor Huddleston, and Canon L. John Collins in Britain;
Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, George Houser and the Reverend Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., in the United States; and the Reverend Gunnar Helander and Per
Wastberg in Sweden. The Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organisation,
established in Cairo in 1957, and its national affiliates were active in promoting
support to the liberation movement in African, Asian and Socialist countries. The
government of Egypt provided offices for the liberation movements.

leaders than that of the heroes of the movement who have made great sacrifices. The United
Nations, it may be recalled, made no such distinction when it awarded medals in 1978 and 1982 to
leaders in the international campaign against apartheid.
-I
118

Racial oppression in South Africa received international attention in 1946 with

the Indian passive resistance movement against the “Ghetto Act,” which was
supported by the African National Congress and attracted volunteers from all
racial groups, and the complaint by the government of India to the United
Nations.20 The Council on African Affairs in New York, led by Paul Robeson,
redoubled its activities on this issue and a South Africa Committee of members of
Parliament was formed in London by the India League, with Julius Silverman,
M.P. as Chairman.

The Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws in 1952 led to the establishment
of other groups to promote information on the situation in South Africa and
sympathy for the oppressed people. Americans for South African Resistance
(later renamed the American Committee on Africa -ACOA), led by the Rev.
George Houser, was formed in New York to support the Defiance Campaign.
Christian Action in London, led by Canon L. John Collins, was also active in
support of the Defiance Campaign and later set up funds to help political
prisoners and their families. Solidarity spread to Nordic countries where, for
instance, Olof Palme, as a student leader, played a significant role.

After the mass arrests of the leaders of the freedom movement in 1956 and the
staging of a treason trial, Canon Collins, the ACOA and Nordic groups began
fund-raising for the legal defence of the accused and assistance to their families.
While raising substantial funds from the public, the fund-raising helped in
informing the public about the situation in South Africa.

About the same time, there were moves to boycott the South African racists and
isolate them. Father Trevor Huddleston called for a cultural boycott of South
Africa. The International Table Tennis Federation, led by Ivor Montagu of
Britain, expelled the racist South African team. A boycott movement was formed
in London on June 26, 1959.21 Renamed the Anti-Apartheid Movement in 1960,
it was to play a leading role in public anti-apartheid efforts until the establishment
of a democratic government in South Africa.

20
Though the item before the United Nations was the “treatment of Indians in South Africa”, both
the Indian Congresses in South Africa and the Indian government tried to promote public support
for all the oppressed people of South Africa. The broader question of apartheid was included in the
agenda of the UN General Assembly in 1952.
21
The ANC had organised selective boycotts in South Africa in 1958 and the All African Peoples’
Conference, held in Accra in December 1958, called for a boycott of South African goods. The
boycott campaign in Britain, which followed, was commended by the ANC, the South African
Indian Congress and the Liberal Party.
-I
119

The Sharpeville massacre of March 21, 1960, led to action in many countries
around the world, including mass demonstrations, boycotts of South African
goods and ships and the setting up of anti-apartheid groups. African States, which
emerged into independence and attained membership in the United Nations,
pressed for sanctions against the South African regime. Action against apartheid
was initiated by trade unions, churches, and other non-governmental
organisations.

People’s boycotts of South Africa and governmental sanctions against South

Africa became the focus of anti-apartheid activity.

The work of anti-apartheid groups and the deterioration of the situation in South
Africa had an influence on the attitudes of Western governments. For instance, the
Nordic States which had been hesitant to condemn apartheid changed their
attitude. The United States criticised South Africa after the Sharpeville massacre.
The representative of Britain, which had been the staunchest supporter of South
Africa in claiming that apartheid was an internal issue of the country, declared in
the UN General Assembly on April 5, 1961, that his government “regarded
apartheid as being now so exceptional as to be sui generis”.

Public action in support of the liberation movement again greatly increased in

1963 when the Pretoria regime resorted to the mass detention and torture of
prisoners, and charged Nelson Mandela and others in the Rivonia trial under laws
which denied due process and provided for the death penalty.

Oliver Tambo had arrived in London in 1960 to establish an external mission of

the ANC and a number of other leaders of the liberation movement came out
subsequently to join the mission. They provided guidance to the anti-apartheid
groups and encouraged the establishment of groups in other countries. They were
able to acquaint the public of the situation in South Africa and the development of
the liberation struggle, and explain the moral, political and material assistance
sought by the liberation movement. Nelson Mandela’s statement from the dock in
April 1964 was a powerful inspiration.

The United Nations began actively to encourage and support the movement
against apartheid since the Special Committee against Apartheid began its work in
April 1963. There followed a rapid expansion of anti-apartheid groups and the
range of their activities.
-I
120

The boycott of apartheid sports teams involved millions of people and

demonstrated world revulsion against apartheid.

Cultural boycott also had a great impact. Moreover, artists, writers and musicians
reached millions of people with the anti-apartheid message.

Campaigns against investments in South Africa – persuading by local bodies and

the public to take action where national governments were recalcitrant – exerted
strong pressure on corporations involved in South Africa.

South Africa was excluded from numerous professional and other public
organisations and conferences.

No international movement had ever engaged in such a range of actions as the

movement against apartheid.

The people’s movement against apartheid comprised thousands of organisations –

anti-apartheid and solidarity movements, peace movements, trade unions,
churches, organisations of students, youth and women and many professional
bodies. It included pacifists, socialists, communists and even some conservatives.
Among its ranks were some of the greatest intellectuals of the time – artists,
writers, musicians etc. There was no central direction, but parallel actions
resulting from a common loyalty to the cause of freedom and human rights.

The United Nations General Assembly has often commended the anti-apartheid
groups. On December 12, 1979, it adopted a resolution on the role of NGOs in
international action against apartheid.22

Public action reinforced the efforts of the United Nations, the OAU and the
liberation movements, and contributed greatly to forcing the Pretoria regime to
negotiate with the genuine representatives of the great majority of the people.

United Nations International Campaign against Apartheid

The United Nations efforts to promote public information and public action
against apartheid began with the establishment of the Special Committee against
Apartheid.

22
Resolution 34/93M.
-I
121

The General Assembly decided on the establishment of the Special Committee by

resolution 1762 (XVII) of November 6, 1962, sponsored mostly by African
States, which recommended a series of sanctions by Member States against South
Africa and requested the Security Council to take measures, including sanctions
and the suspension or expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations. The
Western Powers refused to accept membership of the Committee – the first
committee to be boycotted by them. While most observers expected that the
Special Committee would be totally ineffective in dealing with a “perennial”
issue, it took advantage of the boycott of the Western Powers to become a
dynamic action-oriented committee. While it was established merely to keep the
situation in South Africa under review between sessions of the General Assembly,
it decided that its function could not be to produce more documents but to
promote widest international action for the elimination of apartheid.

It approached Member States to encourage imposition of sanctions recommended

by the General Assembly and obtained information on action taken by a great
majority of States, some at great sacrifice, though not by the Western States and
other major trading partners of South Africa. A month after its first meeting, it
submitted a report drawing attention to the grave new developments in South
Africa and made a series of recommendations for action. Its recommendations
were fully endorsed by the founding Conference of the Organisation of African
Unity in Addis Ababa (May 1963) which called for discussion of the situation by
the Security Council and deputed four Foreign Ministers to represent Africa. The
Security Council adopted, on August 7, 1963, a resolution recommending an arms
embargo against South Africa; Britain and France abstained on the resolution and
the United States voted in favour. That was the first action by the United Nations
to exert pressure against the apartheid regime.

During the next year, the Special Committee worked tirelessly to secure a
strengthening of the arms embargo, to promote international action for an end to
the Rivonia trial and the release of all political prisoners, and to encourage
humanitarian aid to political prisoners and their families through the Defence and
Aid Fund and other bodies.

The Special Committee recognised from its inception the primary role of the
national liberation movement of South Africa23 and the significant contribution of
organisations and individuals in the rest of the world opposed to apartheid.

23
I prefer to use the term “national liberation movement” in singular, though it comprises many
organisations.
-I
122

Brushing aside doubts as to its competence to grant hearings to South Africans, it

heard several South Africans and anti-apartheid activists. Between May and July
1963, it heard an ANC delegation (Duma Nokwe, Robert Resha and Tennyson
Makiwane) and Patrick Duncan of PAC, as well as Ms. Mary Benson, a South
African writer; George Houser, Executive Director of the American Committee
on Africa; Professor Leslie Rubin, a founder member of the South African Liberal
Party; and Ms. Miriam Makeba, South African singer.24

In October 1963, on its recommendation, Oliver Tambo and Bishop Ambrose

Reeves were heard by the General Assembly’s Special Political Committee, a
committee of the whole, which discussed the problem of apartheid. The officers
of the Special Committee held a reception in their honour at the United Nations
Headquarters, thereby setting a precedent which the Committee and the Centre
were to follow on many occasions. They treated representatives of the liberation
movement and the anti-apartheid organisations as honoured guests and associates
in a common struggle.

A delegation of the Special Committee visited London in April 1964 to attend the
International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa organised by the
Anti-Apartheid Movement and held extensive discussions with the movement.

While the Special Committee was soon able to make apartheid recognised as one
of the main issues before the United Nations and secure some progress in action
against apartheid, it became clear by 1965 that a virtual deadlock had been
reached on sanctions against South Africa. Britain announced an arms embargo
against South Africa in November 1964, but France remained uncooperative and
became the main supplier of military equipment to the apartheid regime. None of
the three major Western Powers were prepared to move any further. The smaller
Western countries took no measures against South Africa but for an arms
embargo, arguing that action by them would be ineffective without decisions by
the Security Council binding on all Member States; it was well known that three
permanent members25 would veto any such proposals in the Council.

Considering this situation, the Special Committee proposed, and the General
Assembly endorsed, in 1966, an “international campaign against apartheid”,
under United Nations auspices, as a means to overcome the impasse through a

24
Until this time no petitioner had been heard by the United Nations on the question of apartheid.
Hearings were granted by the United Nations bodies only to petitioners from colonial territories.
25
China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States are the five permanent
members of the Security Council with the right of veto. France, the United Kingdom and the
United States repeatedly exercised their veto to prevent effective sanctions against South Africa.
-I
123

comprehensive programme of action involving the United Nations, governments,

intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations and individuals. While
continuing to press for comprehensive and mandatory sanctions by the Security
Council and to point to the grave responsibility of the major Western Powers and
other trading partners for the perpetuation of apartheid, the campaign would try to
secure progress on measures which could be adopted by the General Assembly
and implemented by governments and the public such as boycotts, assistance to
political prisoners and their families, scholarships and other assistance to South
African refugees, as well as moral, political and material assistance to the national
liberation movement.

It is not possible in a short paper to review the numerous initiatives taken by the
Special Committee on a wide range of actions for almost thirty years.26 Reference
will be made only to the strategy and to some of the features of the campaign.

Role of the Liberation Movement and of International Solidarity

The Special Committee always emphasised that while the United Nations had a
vital interest in the eradication of apartheid, the role of the United Nations and the
international community was supportive and secondary. As the Chairman of the
Special Committee, Achkar Marof of Guinea, declared in 1967:

“…the main role in the liberation of southern Africa should rightfully go

to the oppressed people themselves. The international community can
assist them and help create conditions in which they can secure the
liberation with the least possible violence and delay, but it cannot aspire to
deliver liberation to them. The efforts of the international community
should only complement the efforts of the oppressed people…

"The struggle for freedom in South Africa is certainly the right, the
responsibility and the privilege of the people of South Africa. They have
not abdicated their struggle or asked for freedom as a gift from the rest of
the world. Whatever we do at the international level - whether as
governments or in anti-apartheid movements and other popular
organisations - we need to recognise in all humility that our role is but
secondary. We do not aspire to liberate - which would be tantamount to

26
For information on the work of the Special Committee, please see The United Nations and
Apartheid 1948-1994, published by the United Nations Department of Public Information, New
York, 1994; and the websites www.anc.org.za/un and www.anc.org.za/un/reddy.
-I
124

substituting ourselves to the South African people - but to assist the

liberation, as that is our duty if we are loyal to our own convictions. We
can discharge this duty only if we avoid any pity or paternalism and
remain at all times responsive to the needs and desires of the liberation
movement."

The Special Committee, therefore, treated the liberation movement with respect
and always paid great attention to its views and requests. It often acted, in effect,
as the lobby for the liberation movement.

The Strategy

The Special Committee shared the view of the liberation movement that apartheid
was sustained by the military, economic and political cooperation of a few
Western Powers – the United Kingdom, the United States, Federal Republic of
Germany, France and Italy in particular – and Japan, which were the main trading
partners of South Africa. They had the capacity to exert effective pressure on the
Pretoria regime. Sanctions by them would be of great assistance to the liberation
movement and would enable it to achieve a non-racial democratic society with a
minimum of violence.

But these Powers, because of profits derived by their corporations from apartheid
and their strategic calculations in the context of the cold war, were obstructing
any action against the apartheid regime.

When the General Assembly adopted a resolution on sanctions in 1962, none of

the Western Powers voted in favour. It was, therefore, essential to wean the
smaller Western Powers from this block, isolate the main collaborators with
apartheid and thereby exert pressure on them to cooperate in international action
against apartheid.

The anti-apartheid coalition had to be extended from its base in the Movement of
Non-aligned States and the Organisation of African Unity, as well as the nascent
anti-apartheid movements, to include all States except the few major collaborators
and, at the same time, obtain maximum support from public opinion even in those
countries with a view, hopefully, to persuade them to impose sanctions against the
apartheid regime. Any moves by the United States, Britain and other governments
to view the liberation struggle in South Africa through the prism of the “cold war”
had to be countered.
-I
125

This required diplomatic action by the committed States, the utilisation of the
potentials of the United Nations and other international organisations, and the
encouragement of the anti-apartheid movements and other NGOs to mobilise the
people in solidarity with the liberation struggle.

Second, apartheid affected every aspect of life in South Africa. Action against
apartheid had to be conducted on many fronts. Arms embargo, economic
sanctions and boycotts were crucial, but they had to be complemented by
imaginative action on matters relating to trade union rights, health, education,
sports, status of women, academic freedom, prison conditions, etc. Benefits of
international cooperation had to be denied to all institutions and organisations
based on apartheid.

Third, recognising the primary role of the liberation movement, the Special
Committee sought to promote assistance needed by it in its just struggle – from
assistance to political prisoners, their families and refugees to direct assistance to
the liberation movement for its political and social activities as well as armed
struggle. It helped set up United Nations programmes for humanitarian and
educational assistance but decided to encourage direct assistance to the liberation
movement by Governments, the United Nations family of agencies and NGOs.

Growing support from Nordic and other smaller Western States

In 1965, several Nordic and other smaller Western States responded generously to
an appeal by the Special Committee for contributions to the Defence and Aid
Fund and the World Council of Churches for assistance to the political prisoners
and their families in South Africa. This reflected growing public sentiment in
those countries against apartheid, promoted by anti-apartheid groups, as well as
their loyalty to the United Nations.

In the same year, the Chairman of the Special Committee and I initiated
consultations with Nordic delegations on the formulation of the General
Assembly resolution on apartheid with respect to sanctions. Taking into account
the views of their governments that only the Security Council can decide on
sanctions , the Special Committee agreed on the following formulation which was
endorsed by the General Assembly:

“Draws the attention of the Security Council to the fact that the situation in
South Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security, that
action under Chapter VII of the Charter is essential in order to solve the
-I
126

problem of apartheid and that universally applied economic sanctions are the
only means of achieving a peaceful solution”.

In subsequent years almost all the smaller Western States subscribed to this
formulation, thereby isolating the major Western Powers. After Soweto massacre of
1976, Sweden and Norway began to implement unilateral measures against South
Africa, especially the prohibition of new investment in South Africa.

The Nordic States made very generous contributions for legal assistance to the
political prisoners and assistance to their families and to refugees. They contributed
well over half of the $50 million received by the UN Trust Fund for South Africa
and gave much more in direct grants to the International Defence and Aid Fund for
Southern Africa. Many other Western countries made annual contributions to the
UN Trust Fund. Sweden and Norway also gave substantial assistance to the
liberation movement for non-military activities, and their example was followed by a
few other Western countries.

The Special Committee’s cooperation with these countries developed rapidly. From
1984, several smaller Western countries sponsored resolutions on “Concerted
international action for the elimination of apartheid” recommending a series of
measures against the apartheid regime and in support of the struggle against that
regime. These resolutions were adopted by overwhelming majorities. As sponsors of
the resolutions, they accepted the moral commitment to implement their provisions.
The participation of these countries in the anti-apartheid coalition was particularly
helpful in reinforcing the non-racialism of the liberation movement and in resisting
the intrusion of the “cold war” into southern Africa.

Partial Measures

While the Special Committee favoured comprehensive sanctions against apartheid

and full support to the liberation movement in its struggle, it recognised that some
governments and public organisations could only go part of the way. It encouraged
them to do their best in measures they approve and this often resulted in progress in
commitment.

In 1970, the General Assembly discontinued the practice of one resolution on

apartheid and began to consider separate resolutions on various aspects of
international action. This enabled countries which had reservations on some
proposals to support other resolutions.
-I
127

The resolutions demanding the release of political prisoners, calling for clemency to
freedom fighters, appealing for assistance to political prisoners and their families or
denouncing the bantustans and their fake “independence” received virtually
unanimous support, thus demonstrating world condemnation of apartheid.
Resolutions on the arms embargo and sports boycott received an overwhelming
majority of the votes, while resolutions condemning the collaboration of some
governments with the apartheid regime or supporting the right of the liberation
movement to undertake armed struggle received fewer, though a substantial majority
of, votes.

The votes on these resolutions reflected the progress of diplomatic efforts and public
action in securing a consensus for universal action for the replacement of the
apartheid regime by a government elected by all the people of South Africa.

Of special significance were declarations on the objectives of international action.

They were in conformity with the policies of the liberation movement and received
almost unanimous support. For instance, the Declaration on South Africa, adopted
without a vote on December 12, 1979,27 stated:

“Reaffirming that apartheid is a crime against the conscience and dignity

of mankind;

“Convinced that the United Nations must take the lead in concerted
international action for the elimination of apartheid;…

“Recognising the significant contribution of the struggle for freedom and

equality in South Africa to the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the United Nations;…

1. All States shall recognise the legitimacy of the struggle of the

South African people for the elimination of apartheid and the
establishment of a non-racial society guaranteeing the enjoyment of equal
rights by all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or
creed.

2. All States shall recognise the right of the oppressed people of

South Africa to choose their means of struggle.

27
General Assembly resolution 34/93-O
-I
128

3. All States shall solemnly pledge to refrain from overt or covert

military intervention in support of or defence of the Pretoria regime in its
effort to repress the legitimate aspirations and struggle of the African
people of South Africa against it in the exercise of their right of self-
determination…

7. All States shall demonstrate international solidarity with the

oppressed people of South Africa and with the independent African States
subjected to threats or acts of aggression and subversion by the South
African regime.

Challenging the Legitimacy of the Pretoria Regime

A major contribution of the United Nations was the challenge to the legitimacy of
the Pretoria regime and recognition of the liberation movement as the authentic
representative of the people of South Africa.

The credentials of the South African delegation were challenged by a number of

countries from 1965. The General Assembly decided in 1970 not to accept the
credentials; the President ruled that this was a very solemn warning to the South
African regime, though its delegation would continue to be seated.

In 1973, the Assembly decided, on the recommendation of the Special

Committee, that the South African regime had no right to represent the people of
South Africa, and that the liberation movements recognised by the OAU were
“the authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the South African
people”. It requested all intergovernmental organisations to deny membership to
the South African regime and to invite the liberation movements to participate in
their meetings.

Next year, the General Assembly excluded the South African delegation. And in
1975 it declared that “the racist regime of South Africa is illegitimate”.

Though many of the Western countries voted against or abstained on these

decisions, they contributed to the growing isolation of the Pretoria regime in the
international community.28

28
The South African regime could not be suspended or expelled from the United Nations as that
required a decision of the Security Council where the three Western Powers exercised the veto.
But it was excluded from all United Nations bodies and from many international organisations.
-I
129

Representatives of the ANC and PAC not only began to participate in the debates
on apartheid in the General Assembly but, as observers in the Special Committee,
participated in the drafting of the resolutions on apartheid.

Cooperation with Anti-Apartheid Organisations

One of the most important activities of the Special Committee was its cooperation
with the anti-apartheid movements and other organisations engaged in actions
against apartheid – and this developed into a virtual alliance which was
unprecedented in the history of inter-governmental organisations.

The Special Committee recognised the crucial importance of these organisations

and individuals in breaking the impasse on international sanctions and ensuring
ever more effective action against apartheid. It established close relations with
anti-apartheid movements, especially after a session in Europe in 1968.

It invited leaders of the movements on many occasions for consultations on

action. It organised many seminars, conferences and other events – with the
participation of governments, liberation movements and non-governmental
organisations – for discussion of the campaign against apartheid, and
development of programmes of action. It set a precedent by electing leaders of
anti-apartheid movements as officers of United Nations seminars and conferences.
It also co-sponsored conferences and seminars planned by anti-apartheid groups
and provided them modest financial assistance.

These events helped anti-apartheid movements to consult on internationalising

campaigns against apartheid, to develop cooperation not only with the United
Nations but with the specialised agencies of the United Nations, the Organisation
of African Unity and individual governments, especially in Africa.

The Special Committee ensured that suggestions made by the anti-apartheid

movements, in the light of their experience, were incorporated in resolutions of
the United Nations.

Many of the publications of the Centre against Apartheid were commissioned

from leaders of the liberation movement and anti-apartheid groups, and were
widely circulated through the extensive network of United Nations offices. The
Register of Sports Contacts with South Africa, which helped greatly in enforcing
the sports boycott, was based on information provided by Sam Ramsamy,
-I
130

Chairman of the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee (SAN-ROC).

Mike Terry, executive secretary of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement,
contributed to the companion register of cultural contacts.

The Special Committee, for its part, benefited greatly from its contacts with anti-
apartheid groups.

The work of these groups facilitated its consultations with governments to

promote action against apartheid. On its many missions to governments, the
Special Committee met with the anti-apartheid groups and welcomed their advice
on matters to discuss with the governments.

It established contacts with numerous non-governmental organisations opposed to

apartheid, irrespective of their ideological and other differences, and was able to
bring them together. For instance, international trade union conferences against
apartheid, with the participation of the three international confederations of trade
unions, were possible only because of the efforts of the Special Committee and
the cooperation of the International Labour Organisation.

The Special Committee was able to play an unusually activist role because of its
composition. The Chairman was authorised to issue public statements and appeals
on its behalf without prior approval by the Committee. Through his statements,
the Committee could respond promptly to developments in South Africa
throughout the year and appeal to governments and organisations for appropriate
action.29 It sent messages of support to the campaigns of anti-apartheid groups,
emphasising that they, not the recalcitrant governments, had the support of the
United Nations and the overwhelming majority of humanity.

The cooperation of the United Nations, OAU and committed governments with
the anti-apartheid groups took anti-apartheid action to a new level.

For instance, on the sports boycott, the anti-apartheid movements initiated mass
protests in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. The boycott was
extended when governments and the United Nations took complementary action.
African governments encouraged their sports bodies to press for the expulsion of
South Africa from the Olympics and international sports federations. They asked

29
The Special Committee and the Centre against Apartheid tried to ensure that these statements
were known to the people inside South Africa. From the late 1970s, the United Nations arranged
daily broadcasts to South Africa to inform the people of world-wide action against apartheid.
Leaders of the liberation movement and anti-apartheid groups were frequently interviewed on
these programmes.
-I
131

their sports bodies to boycott the Montreal Olympics in protest against New
Zealand’s collaboration with apartheid sport. Under pressure from African
governments, the Commonwealth adopted the Gleneagles declaration on boycott
of apartheid sport. African and other governments prohibited sportsmen who
played in South Africa from playing in their countries.

Reference must be made to the valuable cooperation of anti-apartheid groups in

monitoring the implementation of United Nations resolutions.

In 1977, the United Nations Security Council decided on a mandatory arms

embargo against South Africa and set up a committee to monitor its
implementation. The committee could do little as governments – especially
Western governments - provided no information to it of any violations of the
embargo.

In 1979, the British Anti-Apartheid Movement, with the encouragement of the

Special Committee, established the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear
Collaboration with South Africa, with Abdul S. Minty as Director. The Special
Committee kept in close contact with the World Campaign which was able, with
the help of anti-apartheid groups, to obtain valuable information. It drew the
attention of the Security Council Committee to the work of the World Campaign
and arranged for Mr. Minty and others to be heard by the Committee. This led to
the strengthening the implementation of the embargo.

A non-governmental organisation in Antigua discovered that the Space Research

Corporation on the United States-Canadian border was shipping weapons systems
through Antigua to South Africa. The Special Committee arranged for its leader,
Tim Hector, to be heard by the Security Council Committee. That led to the
closing of one of the major loopholes in the arms embargo.

In 1980, the Holland Committee on Southern Africa and Working Group Kairos
set up, with the support of the Special Committee, a Shipping Research Bureau in
Amsterdam. Its work helped in monitoring and strengthening the implementation
of the oil embargo against South Africa.

The Special Committee and the NGOs tried to relate their activities to movements
inside South Africa.

For instance, in 1963-64 when torture of political prisoners was widespread, and
prison conditions were inhuman, there were protests by democratic whites in
-I
132

South Africa. The Defence and Aid Fund in London publicised the situation. The
Special Committee published a number of affidavits from prisoners and called on
the International Committee of the Red Cross to take action. It also referred the
matter to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which set up a
Working Group to investigate the situation. As a result of these initiatives, the
Pretoria regime was obliged to improve the treatment of sentenced prisoners,
though regrettably the ICRC delegates were not permitted to see detainees and
awaiting trial prisoners.

In the early 1970s when there was an upsurge of African unions in South Africa
and an exposure by NUSAS of wages and working conditions in multinational
enterprises in South Africa, pressure on the corporations by trade unions and anti-
apartheid groups in Western countries greatly increased. The campaign for the
withdrawal of investments in South Africa drew wide support. As a result of these
actions, supported by the Special Committee, the Pretoria regime was obliged to
legalise African trade unions.

The United Nations and anti-apartheid groups carried on a persistent campaign for
the release of prisoners, especially since 1963. In that connection, they publicised
the life and statements of Nelson Mandela. In 1976, there was an impressive
observance of the sixtieth birthday of Nelson Mandela by governments,
organisations and individuals. Soon, with the encouragement of the United
Nations, numerous awards and honours were bestowed on Nelson Mandela,
making him the most honoured political prisoner in history and the symbol of the
liberation struggle.30

In 1980, after the independence of Zimbabwe, Percy Qoboza, editor of Sunday

Post in Johannesburg, launched a campaign for the release of Mandela and it
received wide support in South Africa. The Special Committee commended that
campaign and took further action internationally to develop the “Free Mandela”
campaign. The campaign became a major component of the struggle against
apartheid, thanks to the actions of anti-apartheid movements and the United
Nations.

30
I had initiated the move for the international observance of the 60th birthday of Nelson
Mandela, following a suggestion by Mac Maharaj, by personal letters to a number of governments
and organisations, and the response was overwhelming. I intended to continue with honouring
other leaders of the liberation movement, but Oliver Tambo advised me that the ANC wished to
focus on Mr. Mandela as the symbol. Mr. Tambo, who was greatly admired in many countries,
declined honours to himself.
-I
133

A Historic Achievement

The liberation of South Africa from entrenched tyranny was a historic

achievement of a global alliance of governments and peoples in support of the
liberation struggle.

In the 1950s when the apartheid regime enacted a series of repressive laws and the
Congress Alliance led a mass non-violent resistance, many observers feared that
the situation might lead to a “race war” with incalculable international
repercussions.31 With the example of the Algerian revolution, a revolution in a
country with a million European settlers which led to the loss of well over a
million lives, one shuddered to think what a similar revolution in South Africa
could entail.

The vision of the leaders of the liberation movement, and the support it received
from all corners of the globe, ensured that the struggle in South Africa succeeded
with a relatively small number of casualties.32

Toward a Global Alliance for a New World Order

The movement against apartheid demonstrated people’s power. It showed that the
United Nations can become a powerful force when it forges an alliance with
public movements for peace and justice.

It also showed that it is possible to overcome the obstruction of a few

governments insensitive to the legitimate aspirations of people by building an
alliance of all other States with public organisations, especially in the States
opposing progress, and utilising the possibilities which exist in the United Nations
despite the misuse of the veto in the Security Council.

But the alliance against apartheid did not succeed in eliminating racism in the
world.

31
The agenda item proposed by the Asian-African States in the UN General Assembly in 1952
was entitled “the question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid
of the Government of the Union of South Africa”.
32
Regrettably people in the frontline States suffered enormously from aggression and
destabilisation by the Pretoria regime – as United Nations efforts to protect these States were
blocked, particularly by the callousness of the Reagan administration.
-I
134

Apartheid was based on the premise that it is not possible for people of different
races and cultures to live together in amity. Even as the new South Africa was
proving this wrong, there have emerged many ethnic and other conflicts in the
world causing enormous suffering and loss of life. Meanwhile the world is also
faced with many old and new problems which cause enormous misery to the
peoples.

President Thabo Mbeki has suggested, in his State of the Nation address in May,
that "perhaps the time has come for the emergence of a united movement of the
peoples of the world that would come together to work for the creation of a new
world order". After the endorsement of the suggestion by the ANC National
Executive Committee (NEC) on 16-17 September, he wrote:

”The NEC analysed the emerging world order, which is increasingly

characterised by the dominance of a single world power and grossly
uneven economic and social development. It is a world order characterised
by terrorist activity, illegal wars of 'pre-emption' and 'regime change',
suicide bombings, and extra-judicial killings. This is taking place
alongside the weakening of multilateralism and a disregard for the United
Nations and the established principles of international law.

”The principal challenges of this age - tackling poverty, underdevelopment

and human misery - are becoming ever more neglected as powerful and
wealthy nations pursue, at a massive cost to world peace and stability,
their own narrow material interests….

”Among other things, the movement would need to unite all those across
the world who are committed to a more just, more democratic human and
caring world which will guarantee peace and security for all irrespective
of size, power, class, religion or nationality. It would need to campaign on
the basis of the common good and common interests of humanity. The
movement should mobilise civil society organisations and social
movements, as well as multilateral institutions and governments.”

What is envisaged is an international alliance of governments, organisations and

individuals to overcome the few governments and vested interests which seek to
impose a “right wing agenda” on the world at the cost of massive human
suffering, and to bring about a new world order. I believe the rich experience of
the international solidarity movement for the liberation of South Africa provides
valuable lessons for developing such an alliance.
-I
135

INDIA’S SUPPORT TO FREEDOM STRUGGLE IN

SOUTH AFRICA
-I
136

NATIONAL MOVEMENTS OF INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA:

A HISTORIC FRIENDSHIP33

The convening of the International Conference of Youth against Apartheid in

New Delhi, on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the African National
Congress of South Africa, highlights the historic relationship between the Indian
and South African national movements.

Both India and South Africa were colonised for long periods. The modern
national movements which emerged after the defeat of resistance by the
indigenous rulers had to carry on long and difficult struggles - in India because it
was by far the largest colony, and in South Africa because of a large white settler
community and the mineral riches which attracted powerful vested interests. The
first task of both was to overcome the divisions which facilitated alien conquest
and unify their peoples. They acquired a similar ideology and international
outlook which brought them ever closer, as did the growing identification of the
Indian community in South Africa with the African majority in the struggle for
freedom, equal rights and dignity.

I would like, in this article, to trace some landmarks in the relationship which
developed between the two national movements and continues to grow even after
India attained independence.

Gandhiji in South Africa

The beginnings of political organisation in South Africa can be traced to the

1880s - soon after the defeat of the Zulu Kingdom and about the same time as the
establishment of the Indian National Congress.

The sojourn of Gandhiji in South Africa from 1893 to 1914 and his organisation
of the Indians of all strata, from wealthy merchants to illiterate serfs under
indentured labour - professing several religions and many languages - in a united

33
Written on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the African National Congress of South
Africa, January 8, 1987, which was observed in New Delhi with an International Conference of
Youth against Apartheid. Published in Mainstream, New Delhi, January 10, 1987.
-I
137

struggle for their rights, had no doubt a great impact as the small African associ-
ations developed into a national organisation in 1912.

Gandhiji himself kept aloof from the African movements for fear of scaring the
whites and endangering the security of the Indian community. He barely mentions
any African leaders in his autobiography or in Satyagraha in South Africa, though
he met many of them during the deputations to London and in South Africa itself
where John L. Dube, who was to become the first President of ANC, set up an
industrial school and a newspaper close to his Phoenix Settlement.

The Natal Indian Congress, founded by Gandhiji in 1894, could not but have
influenced the formation of Natal Native Congress in 1900 and similar bodies in
other provinces in subsequent years. They came together at the South African
Native Convention, the first representative national conference, in 1909 to protest
the move by the British Government to transfer power to the white minority.

Meanwhile, the African People's Organisation was established in 1903 and two
years later Dr. Abdullah Abdurahman, who espoused unity of the oppressed
people, became its President. Though its membership was small, and almost
wholly confined to the Coloured people, it exercised a significant influence on
public thinking.

Separate deputations were sent to London by the Africans, the Indians and the
Coloured people to appeal to the British Government and Parliament against the
transfer of power under a "colour bar" constitution with a whites-only Parliament.
Their representations were ignored in a cynical betrayal of promises to the
African and Indian people, and the South Africa Act was passed in 1909. The
Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 and the white regime proceeded to
deprive the Africans of their land as well as the few rights they enjoyed.

The African leaders then convened a conference in Bloemfontein on January 8,

1912, and established the South African Native National Congress (later renamed
the African National Congress) to unite all the people across tribal divisions to
defend the rights of the Africans against the union of Britons and Boers to exploit,
oppress and dispossess them.

One of the first mass actions of the ANC was the 1919 "passive resistance"
campaign against pass laws, reminiscent of the satyagraha launched by Gandhiji
on July 1, 1907, against the Asiatic Registration Act in the Transvaal. Thousands
of men and women threw away their passes and courted arrest. Thousands were
-I
138

sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; those who were sentenced to fines
refused to pay them and elected to go to prison. Many were trampled under
horses’ hoofs by mounted policemen and shot at by white vigilantes. Several were
killed.

Common Outlook

After the First World War, the common international outlook of the national
movements of the two countries brought them closer.

The Indian National Congress began in the 1920`s to espouse Asian solidarity
and, with the accession of Jawaharlal Nehru to leadership, the solidarity of all the
oppressed people of the world.

The African National Congress, for its part, developed an African and
international outlook. The partitioning of Africa by the imperial Powers at the
Berlin Conference of 1884-85 and the subsequent rape of Africa were fresh in the
minds of the African leaders in South Africa. Moreover, partly to overcome any
feeling of helplessness in a contest against the white settler community backed by
the strongest colonial Power, they looked upon their struggle as part of the
struggle of the African continent and of people of African origin in the Western
Hemisphere, for redemption. The founding Conference of ANC adopted the
slogan Mayubiye i Afrika (Come Back, Africa) and the national anthem Nkosi
Sikelele i Afrika (God Bless Africa). South Africans were active in the Pan
African Movement and were encouraged by support from outside, especially from
the Black leaders in the United States.

Both the Indian National Congress and the African National Congress welcomed
the convening of the Congress of the Oppressed People against Imperialism in
Brussels from February 10 to 15, 1927. The meeting of Jawaharlal Nehru and
Josiah K. Gumede (President of ANC) at that Congress was of great significance.
Indeed, the contacts established by leaders of colonial peoples at that Congress
were to lay the foundations for the Bandung Conference of 1955 and the Non-
aligned Movement.

Soon after that Congress Indian leaders began to express strong support
for the aspirations of the Africans in South Africa and in other African
countries.
-I
139

The relations between the Indian National Congress and ANC did not develop
further for several years because of the situation in South Africa. The leadership
of the South African Indian Congress had been taken over by petty traders and
others who were loath to antagonise the government. The ANC replaced Gumede
as President and was unable to organise effective resistance in the face of moves
by the white regime to further whittle down the rights of the Africans.

A determined struggle by a new generation of Africans and Indians for militant

action and co-operation of all the oppressed people had to be waged for many
years.

The younger Indians, who were born and grew up in South Africa, were not
satisfied with the petition politics and squabbles of the leaders of the Indian
Congress. Some of them worked in the trade union movement with the Africans
and some had been influenced by the European radical thought of the 1930`s. In
the Liberal Study Group in Durban, young Indian radicals discussed national
issues with African leaders.

Their ranks were strengthened in the late 1930`s when three newly-trained
medical practitioners from Edinburgh University - Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo, Dr. G.
M. ("Monty") Naicker and Dr. K. Goonam - returned to South Africa and agreed
to lead a militant movement. A Non-European United Front, set up on April 25,
1939, and the South African Communist Party also provided means for joint
discussion and action by African and Indian radicals.

Role of Dr. Dadoo

Special mention must be made of Dr. Yusuf Dadoo who was to become one of the
foremost leaders of the South African liberation movement, receiving the highest
award of the ANC in 1955 and being elected Vice-Chairman of the ANC
Revolutionary Committee in 1968.

His political career began in the late 1920s when he completed high school in
India and went to Britain for further studies. Inspired by the Indian national
movement, he was arrested in the demonstration against the Simon Commission
in London in 1928: that was the first of numerous arrests he underwent in the
struggle for freedom. His feeling of solidarity with the African people, aroused
early in his life as he watched the militant African trade union movement in the
1920s, was strengthened during his stay in Britain where he was active in the
-I
140

League against Imperialism. He plunged into the struggle soon after his return to
South Africa in 1936, and became the foremost architect of Indian-African unity.

Oliver Tambo, President of ANC, said at his funeral in London in 1983:

"... it would be wrong to conceive of Comrade Dadoo only as a leader of

the Indian community of our population. He was one of the foremost
national leaders of our country, of the stature of Chief Luthuli, Moses
Kotane, J. B. Marks, Bram Fischer, Nelson Mandela and others...

"(He) played an important role in shaping the revolutionary orientation of

our entire movement towards the noble ideals of true revolutionary
democracy for all the citizens of our future democratic State."

Indian Passive Resistance and African Mineworkers’ Strike

After a long struggle, the conservative leadership of the Indian Congress was
removed in 1945-46. Dr. Dadoo became the leader of the Transvaal Indian
Congress and Dr. Naicker the leader of the Natal Indian Congress. The Indian
community decided to launch mass action - a Passive Resistance Movement -
against the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act of 1946 (the
"Ghetto Act") which restricted Indian ownership of land and trading rights and, as
a sop, offered representation in Parliament by three whites.

Two thousand Indians courted imprisonment in the two phases of the passive
resistance movement between 1946 and 1948, and were joined by some Africans,
Coloured people and whites. The Government was forced to withdraw the so-
called Parliamentary representation because of a complete boycott by the Indians.
The Indian Congresses grew into mass organisations. (The membership of the
Natal Indian Congress, for instance, rose from a few hundred in 1945 to 35,000 in
1947.)

Jawaharlal Nehru, who had already exhorted the Indians to identify with the
African majority, hailed the Passive Resistance Movement. He even remarked
that perhaps the future of India was being decided by the struggle of the Indians in
South Africa.34

34
Quoted by Gandhiji in Harijan, July 14, 1946
-I
141

Mahatma Gandhi spoke repeatedly in strong support of the movement and sent a
personal message to the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, calling for action by the
government. He had, by this time, become convinced of the need for unity of
Indians and Africans, though somewhat paternalistically in terms of Indians
helping and leading the Africans in a non-violent struggle. He told a delegation of
the South African Indian Congress on May 8, 1946:

"The slogan today is no longer merely ‘Asia for Asiatics’ or ‘Africa for
Africans’ but the unity of all the exploited races of the earth."35

Because of the strong public sentiment in India, the Government broke all trade
relations with South Africa and lodged a complaint with the United Nations
against racial discrimination against Indians in that country.

Meanwhile, changes were taking place in the ANC too. Dr. A. B. Xuma, the new
President-General, though a moderate by temperament, revitalised the
organisation. With the industrialisation and urbanisation during the Second World
War, the African workers began to play a more active political role in the ANC.
The ANC Youth League, formed in 1944, pressed for militant mass action such as
civil disobedience and strikes. (Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela and Walter
Sisulu, the present leaders of ANC, were among the founders of the Youth
League).

Dr. Xuma recognised the value of co-operation between Africans and Indians. He
joined with Dr. Dadoo in organising an anti-pass campaign in 1944. He attended
the conference of the Transvaal Indian Congress in 1946 and declared full support
to the Indian Passive Resistance Movement.

The African Mineworkers’ Strike in August 1946 was a turning point in the
African movement - leading to a transition from mere petitions and appeals to
mass action. A hundred thousand mineworkers went on a strike for higher wages.
The Smuts Government called in the army and resorted to savage violence to
break the strike. Estimates of those killed range from twelve to hundreds, and at
least a thousand were wounded.

The African leaders then boycotted the Native Representative Council - an

advisory body which they described as a mere "toy telephone" - and looked for
other means to secure their rights.

35
Harijan, May 19, 1946
-I
142

The Indian Passive Resistance Council, itself engaged in a difficult struggle,

placed all its resources at the disposal of the African Mineworkers` Union. Paying
tribute to the mineworkers, it called on the African, Coloured and Indian people
"to rally their entire communities behind the struggle for national liberation and
for full democratic rights for all in South Africa..." Dr. Dadoo was charged -
along with the leader of the union, J. B. Marks, and others - with "inciting" the
workers.

Emergence of African-Indian Unity

Indian and African leaders then began discussions about co-operation. One
immediate result was the despatch of a multi-racial delegation to the United
Nations. It was led by Dr. Xuma and included H. A. Naidoo and Sorabjee
Rustomjee from the Indian community and H. Basner, a Senator representing
African voters, and received the active support of the Indian delegation at the
United Nations.

India not only made a considerable sacrifice by its trade embargo against South
Africa (affecting five percent of its export trade) but earned the hostility of the
Western Powers by its strong anti-racist and anti-colonial position at the United
Nations.

Discussions between ANC and the Indian Congresses continued after the return of
the delegation from New York. On March 9, 1947, a "Joint Declaration of Co-
operation" was signed by Dr. Xuma on behalf of ANC, Dr. Naicker on behalf of
the Natal Indian Congress and Dr. Dadoo on behalf of the Transvaal Indian
Congress. This "three Doctors’ Pact", formalising the African-Indian alliance in
struggle, is a major turning point in the struggle for liberation in South Africa.

It led to the launching of the "Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws" in

1952, in which over 8,000 people of all races courted arrest; to the establishment
of the Coloured People's Congress, the Congress of Democrats and the South
African Congress of Trade Unions; and to the "Congress Alliance" which directed
the freedom movement from 1955.

India, together with other Asian and Arab nations, brought the whole issue of
apartheid before the United Nations in 1952, and remained the foremost supporter
of the freedom movement in South Africa until African nations could take over
leadership in international action. In 1962, India asked the United Nations to stop
-I
143

further discussion of discrimination against the people of Indian origin in South

Africa as a separate item as it had become part of the wider problem of apartheid.

The alliance of the African and Indian people developed into an alliance of all the
oppressed people and white democrats, and was cemented in growing struggle
and sacrifice.

In 1961 when ANC leaders decided that they were obliged to resort to an armed
struggle, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) was established with a
multi-racial leadership, including Indians.

In the external missions established since 1960, Indians worked as part of the
ANC. The late M. P. Naicker, who went into exile in 1966, served as director of
publicity of ANC until his death in 1977.

In 1968, the ANC threw open its membership to non-Africans and Dr. Dadoo was
elected Vice-Chairman of its Revolutionary Council. In 1985, it elected six non-
Africans, including two Indians, to its national executive.

The United Democratic Front and the Congress of South African Trade Unions
(COSATU), the two powerful mass organisations established inside South Africa
in recent years, are multi-racial and include Indians in their leadership.

These steady advances towards unity of the oppressed people were not easy and
had always encountered opposition of the regime and of some short-sighted
elements among the oppressed people. It is to the credit of leaders like Chief
Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Yusuf Dadoo
that they fought all racialism, at times even risking their popularity.

Alliance of India with Fighting People of South Africa

India continued its unequivocal support of the liberation struggle in South Africa;
but in the early 1960`s its solidarity became somewhat passive and routine. There
was a tendency to regard the struggle in South Africa as primarily an African
concern and to await the lead of African States. Public activity in support of the
South African struggle declined on the part of India and several African and other
countries overtook India in the level of concrete support to the South African
liberation movement.
-I
144

Passivity, however, has become utterly untenable with the growing crisis and
confrontation in southern Africa and the efforts of the South African regime to
intimidate the frontline States. African leaders appealed for a more active role by
India when India became the chairman of the Movement of Non-aligned
Countries.

In 1983-84, the racist regime tried through a new racist constitution - offering
segregated chambers of Parliament to the Coloured and Indian communities and
excluding the African majority - to divide the oppressed people. The imposition
of that constitution, despite overwhelming opposition by the Coloured and Indian
people, was followed by an unprecedented revolutionary upsurge in South Africa.
The regime, unable to control the situation, has been resorting to ever-increasing
repression and violence. At the same time, it has escalated aggression and
destabilisation of the Frontline States, causing enormous damage to their
economies.

The genocide in South Africa and the conflict in southern Africa demand decisive
international action. But the major Western Powers continue to block such action,
trying to find a solution which would preserve white domination. The African
States, faced with enormous difficulties, have been unable to exert effective
influence on these Powers.

India, true to its traditions, must again take the lead in co-operation with African
and other States. It can and must help confront and press the major Western
Powers to stop their collaboration with the racists, provide greater assistance to
the Frontline States and liberation movements and promote greater solidarity
action by world public opinion.

The struggle in southern Africa must be viewed as our struggle, and India must
become a Frontline State.

Happily, India is moving in that direction.

The appeal by Indira Gandhi to the Indian and Coloured people of South Africa in
August 1984 to boycott the racist constitution and reject the inducements of the
racist regime had a great impact on the developments in South Africa.

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has not only been forthright in the Commonwealth
discussions and in public statements, but has taken concrete action such as the
order prohibiting Indian collaborators with apartheid from entry into India and an
-I
145

increase in assistance to the liberation movements. He has taken seriously his

responsibility as Chairman of the Africa Fund of the Non-aligned Movement.
Southern Africa has been given higher priority in India's foreign policy and is
receiving constant attention.

The establishment of an all-party Parliamentary Committee against apartheid and

the moves for a public committee against apartheid will help reflect the unity of
India on the issue and reinforce the policy of the Government, recapturing the
spirit of 1946 when the country showed readiness for any sacrifice in support of
the struggle in South Africa.

Let us in 1987 observe the 80th anniversary of the Satyagraha in the Transvaal,
the sixtieth anniversary of the Nehru-Gumede meeting in Brussels, and the
fortieth anniversary of the Xuma-Naicker-Dadoo pact, as much as the fortieth
anniversary of our own independence, by proclaiming an alliance between India
and the fighting people of South Africa. Let us declare that any support to the
despicable racist regime in South Africa is an affront to India. Let us assure the
people of South Africa of all necessary political and material support to ensure
that the present confrontation will not be one more skirmish but the battle for final
victory over racist domination.
-I
146

NEHRU AND AFRICA36

"His sympathy and understanding of the problems of Africa were a

great source of courage to all who have been engaged in the
struggle for the liberation and unity of Africa."
-President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, in a broadcast
on the death of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

"In the upsurge of anti-colonial and freedom struggles that swept

through Asia and Africa in the postwar period, there could hardly
be a liberation movement or national leader who was not
influenced one way or another by the thoughts, activities and
example of Pandit Nehru and the All India Congress. If I may
presume to look back on my own political education and
upbringing, I find that my own ideas were influenced by his
experience."
- Nelson Mandela, in letter from prison to India,
August 3, 1980

Whenever Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of Africa, it was with the passion of a historian
who revolted at the long martyrdom of the people of that continent, the faith of a
leader of a national liberation struggle in the ultimate triumph of all oppressed
peoples, and the commitment of an internationalist to assist other peoples in their
efforts for emancipation. There was not the slightest trace of condescension or
paternalism, but respect for the culture of the African peoples and confidence in
their resurgence. Africa, to him, was not a remote continent but a neighbour
across the seas, "for the sea both separates and connects." (Nehru and Africa, page
38).

He espoused African freedom during India’s own struggle for independence.

Hardly had he become head of the Interim Government on September 1, 1946,
that he began to exhort Asia and the world to help Africa. He told the Asian
Relations Conference in New Delhi in March 1947: "We of Asia have a special
responsibility to the people of Africa. We must help them to take their rightful
place in the human family." At the conclusion of the Asian-African Conference in
Bandung in 1955, he felt compelled to point out:
36
Published in the Nehru Centenary Volume (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, November 14,
1989) and in Sechaba, London, July 1989.
-I
147

"Everything else pales into insignificance when I think of the infinite

tragedy of Africa ever since the days when millions of Africans were
carried away as galley slaves to America and elsewhere, half of them
dying in the galleys. We must accept responsibility for it, all of us, even
though we ourselves were not directly involved."
"Even now," he continued, "the tragedy of Africa is greater than that of
any other continent, whether it is racial or political. It is up to Asia to help
Africa to the best of her ability because we are sister continents." (Speech
at concluding session on April 24, 1955).

He told the Seminar on Problems of Portuguese Colonies in New Delhi on

October 20, 1961:
"My heart goes out to what is happening in Africa. I think that the agony
of the African continent throughout history has been such that it has not
been equaled anywhere. It is terrible, and I think the whole world owes it
to the African people not to hinder them, but to help them in freedom in
every way." (Nehru and Africa, page 36).

He saw to it that India did its utmost to promote African freedom and play a
leading role on behalf of Africa in the United Nations and other fora until newly-
independent African nations could take over.
He rejoiced at the march of freedom in Africa by the early 1960`s and the
formation of the Organisation of African Unity. He said on August 12, 1963:
"... perhaps the most exciting thing that is happening in the twentieth
century is the awakening of Africa...
"It is, I think, a major event in history and, what is more, it is going to play
an ever-growing part in the coming years. We in India have naturally
welcomed it." (Nehru and Africa, page 37)

Africa, moreover, was very much in his mind as he sought to promote a "peace
zone" shielded from the cold war, and build a concert of non-aligned nations to
secure the total abolition of colonialism and promote a world without arms and
war. The decision of the African States in 1963, to join the Movement of Non-
aligned Countries en bloc, making Africa the one continent that is totally non-
aligned, was in a sense the best tribute to the labours of Pandit Nehru.

Heritage of the Indian National Movement

Nehru’s concern with racialism and colonialism in Africa and his feeling of
solidarity with the African people has its roots in his innate humanism, his
-I
148

experience in the Indian freedom struggle and his intimate association with
Mahatma Gandhi.

Until the 1920s Indian interest in Africa had centred around the position of Indian
settlers in southern and eastern Africa. Tens of thousands of Indians had been
recruited, after the abolition of African slavery in the nineteenth century, to work
under semi-slave conditions as indentured labourers in plantations, mines and
railways in South Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Africans and Indians thus
shared in oppression. By the end of the century, however, some of the Indian
labourers who completed their indenture, and the traders who followed them,
advanced in economically. Concerned at competition from them, European
settlers in South Africa enacted a series of measures designed to dispossess and
deport the "free" Indians. The Satyagraha led by Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa
from 1906 to 1914, for the rights and honour of Indians, fired Indian imagination
and the first political activity of Jawaharlal Nehru was to raise funds for the
resisters in South Africa in 1912.

His interest widened to encompass the entire continent of Africa, and a global
view of its struggles, when he represented the Indian National Congress at the
International Congress against Imperialism, held in Brussels in 1927, and met
several African leaders. He also became familiar with the developments in South
Africa and warmly welcomed the agreement among the South African delegates
at the conference to promote co-operation among Africans, Indians and radical
whites in the struggle against racism.

In a memorandum on "A Foreign Policy for India" , sent to the Indian Congress
later that year, he suggested that Indians in Africa "should co-operate with the
Africans and help them as far as possible and not claim a special position for
themselves which is denied to the indigenous inhabitants of the country."
(Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 2, page 362).

He maintained contact with several leaders of the African freedom movements,

especially in London, and with the Pan African movement. The Pan African
Congresses began to support the Indian demand for complete independence while
the Indian national movement expressed its full sympathy for African aspirations.
In 1936, while passing through Rome on way to India, Nehru rejected approaches
for a meeting with the Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, because of the Italian
invasion of Abyssinia. Instead, he organised nation-wide demonstrations in India
to denounce the aggression, and declared in his presidential address to the
Congress that year:
-I
149

"In Abyssinia bloody and cruel war has already gone on for many months,
and we have watched anew how hungry and predatory imperialism
behaves in its mad search for colonial domains. We have watched also
with admiration the brave fight of the Ethiopians for their freedom against
heavy odds... Their struggle is something more than a local struggle. It is
one of the first effective checks by an African people on an advancing
imperialism..." (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 7, p.194).

At the same time, fascist measures in South Africa aroused resistance among
Africans and Indians. A new generation of Indian leaders, led by Dr. Yusuf M.
Dadoo, challenged the compromising leadership of the Indian Congresses,
prepared for militant resistance to racist measures and sought unity with the
African majority in a common struggle for freedom. Nehru’s strong support to the
militants helped promote a non-European united front and joint campaigns against
racist measures.

Meanwhile, the progress and ideology of the national movement in India, the
largest colony struggling against the mightiest imperial power, was followed with
keen interest by Africans. The writings of Pandit Nehru were avidly read by
African intellectuals. His international outlook and his stress that national
freedom must benefit the common people, appealed to the emergent African
movements in which the youth and trade unions played a crucial role. Nowhere
was this as striking as in South Africa, with one of the oldest national movements
struggling against the heaviest odds. To quote Nelson Mandela:
"While at university and engrossed in student politics, I, for the first time,
became familiar with the name of this famous man. In the ‘forties, for the
first time I read one of his books, The Unity of India. It made an indelible
impression on my mind and ever since then I procured, read and treasured
any one of his works that became available."

Indians in Africa

Discrimination against Indians in South Africa was one of the first concerns of
Pandit Nehru when he became head of the Interim Government in 1946. The way
he approached the issue, so unlike leaders of other governments, demonstrated
most clearly his respect for African rights and interests.

Indians in South Africa had launched a passive resistance movement in June 1946
in protest against the "Ghetto Act". Public feeling in India was so intense that
even the Viceroy’s government was obliged to impose a trade embargo against
South Africa, recall its High Commissioner from South Africa and lodge a
complaint with the United Nations.
-I
150

While pressing for action by the United Nations for the removal of discriminatory
measures against Indians, Pandit Nehru constantly drew attention to the broader
context of racism in South Africa and beyond, and exhorted Indians in Africa to
co-operate with the Africans. He wrote in a policy decision on September 15,
1946:
"While India must necessarily aim at protecting the interests and honour of
her nationals abroad,... we do not seek any special privileges against the
inhabitants of the countries concerned. This would apply specially to
African countries where the inhabitants are relatively backward and have
been exploited in the past by others, including to some extent even
Indians. Our objective should be to help in the rapid progress of these
African territories towards political and economic freedom." (Selected
Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Volume 1, page 446).

In a message to Indians in South Africa on the eve of the formation of the Interim
Government, he said:
"The struggle in South Africa is, however, not merely an Indian issue... It
concerns ultimately the Africans who have suffered so much by racial
discrimination and suppression. ... Therefore, the Indians in South Africa
should help in every way and cooperate with the Africans." (Selected
Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Volume 1, page 437).

He said in a further message to Africa in May 1947:

"Indians who live in Africa must always remember that they are the guests
of the Africans and that they may not do anything which might interfere
with the progress of the Africans towards freedom. They must help
Africans to attain their goal, and must cooperate with them in every way
for their mutual advantage. We do not want any Indians to go abroad to
exploit the people of any other country...
"We want to build up one world where freedom is universal, and there is
equality of opportunity between races and peoples.
"I send my good wishes to the people of Africa and my fellow-
countrymen in Africa, and I hope that in the difficult days to come they
will co-operate together to realise the great ideals we have before us."
(Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Volume 3, page
329).
Nehru’s outlook was shared by Mahatma Gandhi who had spent 21 years of his
life in South Africa and maintained a continuing interest in the continent.
Gandhiji believed, as did Nehru, that freedom of India should be a means for
promoting freedom of all oppressed people. He stressed that Africa belonged to
the African people and that if any rights of Indians there conflicted with those of
-I
151

oppressed Africans, they should forego those rights. When white hooligans
attacked Indian passive resisters in South Africa in 1946, he declared that he
would not shed a tear if all the Indian resisters were wiped out, for they would
show the way to the Africans and vindicate the honour of India. (Collected Works,
Vol. 84, pp. 422-423).

India’s complaint to the United Nations provided no relief to the Indians in South
Africa, but served to internationalise the issue of racism in South Africa, and
encourage united struggle by the South African people. In 1952, when the African
National Congress and the South African Indian Congress jointly launched the
"Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws", India took the lead, in co-operation
with other Asian and Arab States, to seize the United Nations of the broader
question of apartheid and took all appropriate action to rally support to the
African National Congress. Pandit Nehru declared that the revolt of all the
oppressed people had overtaken the Indian question and "it is right that it should
be so." (Letter to Chief Ministers, 26 August 1952).
He said in a speech in the Lok Sabha on March 28, 1960, after the Sharpeville
massacre:
"The people of Indian descent in South Africa, as we well know, have had
to put up with a great deal of discrimination and suffering and we have
resented that. But we must remember that the African people have to put
up with something infinitely more, and that, therefore, our sympathies
must go out to them even more than to our kith and ken there."

Two years later, India withdrew its request for separate consideration of its
complaint to the United Nations and threw its entire weight behind action against
apartheid.

In Kenya, as in South Africa, Pandit Nehru tried to promote African-Indian unity

for freedom. In 1952, when the Mau Mau rebellion and brutal mass reprisals by
the authorities created a grave situation, he appealed to the Indians in Kenya to
stand by the Africans in the hour of their need and resist manoeuvres by the
authorities to set Indians against the Africans. He strongly denounced the
repression and did not hesitate to criticise Indian leaders who were timid.

Support for Africa’s Freedom and Advancement

Almost from the day he became head of the Interim Government, and even before
India attained independence, Pandit Nehru ensured that India pressed in every
international forum for speedy advancement of African and other colonial
territories to self-government and independence. He never wavered in his
-I
152

confidence, which was shared by few other world leaders at the time that Africa
would soon be free of colonial rule. As he wrote in his letter to Chief Ministers of
Indian States on February 3, 1949:
"Whatever the immediate future may be in Africa, it is clear that the whole
continent of Africa has got a big future and changes will take place there
fairly rapidly. These changes will be governed by the new political
consciousness of the African people. We welcome this new consciousness
and wish to co-operate with it." (Letters to Chief Ministers, Volume I,
pages 275-76).

At the first session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946, the Indian
delegation carried his instruction to give highest priority to the issues of
colonialism and racism. It not only pressed the complaint concerning racial
discrimination against Indians in South Africa, but was instrumental in defeating
the manoeuvre of the South African government to annex the mandated territory
of South West Africa. It fought doggedly to revise the trusteeship agreements
proposed by the colonial Powers in favour of the colonial peoples, asserting that
sovereignty belonged to the people of the territories and not the administering
Powers.

This was a difficult task as the United Nations was then dominated by the colonial
Powers and their friends, and even other Asian States tended to vacillate or
succumb to pressures. The espousal of the cause of the peoples oppressed by
colonialism and racism earned India the hostility of colonial Powers which
increased with the aggravation of the "cold war" and the rise of military alliances
and blocs. This experience was to have a significant effect on the country’s
foreign relations.

India’s support for African freedom was not confined to public statements or
debates at the United Nations and other fora or even diplomatic exchanges. Pandit
Nehru was always responsive to requests of African leaders and organisations for
practical assistance.

He instituted a scholarship programme for African students at the request of

Kenyan organisations in 1946. The programme was rapidly expanded and despite
the acute scarcity of places in Indian educational institutions, facilities were
readily provided for African applicants. Pandit Nehru took personal interest in the
welfare and progress of the African students.

In 1952, when Jomo Kenyatta was imprisoned in Kenya, he sent a senior counsel
for his defence despite the resentment of British authorities. In 1955, when the
-I
153

African National Congress and the South African Indian Congress sought to send
a delegation to the Asian- African Conference, he arranged for their travel to
Bandung and introduced the delegation to the leaders at the Conference. In 1960,
when Oliver Tambo escaped to Bechuanaland to seek international support for the
struggle in South Africa, Pandit Nehru rushed him travel documents by a special
plane.

In 1961, when the Congo (now Zaire) was faced with a grave crisis after the
assassination of Patrice Lumumba, he sent an Indian brigade to serve with the
United Nations peacekeeping force. It enabled the United Nations to expel
Belgian and other mercenaries and protect the integrity of the Congo.

The process of decolonisation of Africa was complicated by the cold war and the
system of military alliances which encouraged colonial Powers like Portugal to
undertake brutal wars. There was a constant threat of foreign military intervention
even after independence and of a new scramble for Africa.

Pandit Nehru was forthright in opposing foreign intervention and the intrusion of
East-West conflict into Africa. The non-aligned countries played a significant role
in providing diplomatic and other assistance to enable African countries to
withstand external pressures.

Pandit Nehru recognised that the task of building themselves up would be much
more difficult and would require the help of all countries. He assured Africa "that
so far as India is concerned, all our thinking and emotions are with you, and that
so far as we can help, we shall help." (Statement to Seminar on Problems of
Portuguese Colonies, October 20, 1961, in Nehru and Africa, page 36). Despite its
own economic difficulties, India provided assistance to a number of African
countries and liberation movements.

Pandit Nehru’s advocacy of the policy of non- alignment, with its positive and
dynamic content, had a great appeal to Africa. With the advance of African
countries to independence, the Movement of Non-aligned Countries emerged as a
major force in the community of nations.

The Legacy of Nehru

Pandit Nehru played a historic role in assisting the African people to ensure that
the colonial revolution in Asia would be soon be followed by the resurgence of
Africa, confounding those who hoped to keep that continent in perpetuity as their
preserve. He was, in a sense, one of the architects of the united front determined
-I
154

to destroy the abomination of apartheid in South Africa. The decision of African

States to the non-aligned movement en bloc is a tribute to his vision as to that of
African leaders.

He has left behind a legacy of intimate friendship between India and Africa in the
process of liberation and nation-building. But for him, this was to serve not only
the national interests but the larger cause of humanity. The co-operation of India
and the African nations - and, indeed, of all non-aligned and like- minded
countries - in securing a world without arms and genuine international co-
operation in the interests of humanity is the abiding monument to his memory.
-I
155

TAGORE AND SOUTH AFRICA37

The historic role of Gandhiji in leading the heroic resistance of the small Indian
community in South Africa against the racist Anglo-Boer alliance has
overshadowed the significant contribution of many others in South Africa and
India who helped ensure the triumph of the satyagraha though Gandhiji himself
had been generous in acknowledging their assistance. Among those who deserve
recognition is Poet Rabindranath Tagore.

He hailed the satyagraha in South Africa as "the steep ascent of manhood, not
through the bloody path of violence but that of dignified patience and heroic self-
renunciation". He encouraged the Reverend C.F. Andrews to go to South Africa
in January 1914 to assist the Indian community and Gandhiji in a mission that
proved crucial in securing the Smuts-Gandhi settlement. When Gandhiji left
South Africa and sent a number of children from the Phoenix settlement to India,
he provided them hospitality and education in Santiniketan.

It was Rabindranath who named Gandhiji - who had been known in South Africa
as Gandhibhai - a Mahatma.

He kept up an interest in South Africa as discrimination against Indians

continued, and the Reverend Andrews had to visit the community again and again
to assist them in their trials. There was one powerful message that he sent
through Andrews - and later confirmed in a public statement - which was in
advance of Gandhiji and remains relevant until today. As Reverend Andrews
wrote in Modern Review in March 1928:

"The Poet, Rabindranath Tagore, gave me a definite message to the

Indians in South Africa. He stated that if the Indian community could not
win the respect and affection of the Africans (who had the true right to be
in South Africa, as the children of the soil) then they had no place there.
They were imperialist intruders."

I think of this when I read the thoughtless and mischievous statements of some
recent Indian visitors to South Africa who seek to destroy the strong bonds which
had been built between Indians and Africans in the joint struggle against apartheid
and the record of India - under leadership of Gandhiji, Tagore, Sarojini Naidu and

37
Published in Mainstream, New Delhi, August 8, 1992, as an introduction to the text of a lecture
by C.F. Andrews on Tagore.
-I
156

Nehru - in encouraging that alliance. Their approach may even prove criminal by
endangering the future of Indian South Africans.

In his first statement after leaving South Africa - at a London reception in his
honour on August 8, 1914 - Gandhiji said in recognising those who helped the
struggle:

"But I must mention one more: Mr. Andrews. You have no notion of what
he did; how he worked in selfless zeal, preaching love for India through
his Master - the poet-saint at Bolpur whom I have come to know through
Mr. Andrews - Rabindranath Tagore."

The Indians in South Africa at the time were mostly labourers and the community
was mostly illiterate. The Europeans tended to look down upon them, unaware of
the cultural heritage of India; and to call all Indians "coolies".

But the announcement of the Nobel Prize to Tagore in the midst of the struggle
made many of the Europeans curious. Reverend Andrews found enthusiastic
audiences for his exposition of the life and thought of the Poet.

The climax was a meeting in Cape Town City Hall addressed by him. The Mayor
of the City, John Parker, presided. The overflow audience included the Governor-
General Lord Gladstone and his wife, the Archbishop of Cape Town, many
members of Parliament and other dignitaries. John Merriman, a former Prime
Minister of the Cape, gave a vote of thanks.

Lord Gladstone, who had been equivocal on the Indian struggle, to say the least,
then rose to second the vote of thanks. He said the lecture was one to make
people think and to realise in a fuller degree what India was, and what our duties
were to a people who were members of the British Empire.

He recalled that he had made a special study of Indian history at Oxford and had
visited India. He wished that more South Africans would go there and rise to a
higher appreciation of what the Indians were. They would then think less of India
which sends its coolies to the South African coast and realise that there was in the
person of Tagore an intense expression of imaginative national life. In fact, India
had developed, perhaps, far above the line attained by any other part of the British
Empire in its civilisation.

He believed that the lecturer would do much to solve the trouble which had arisen
between India and South Africa, and thanked Reverend Andrews for his effort to
-I
157

bring about a better understanding.

The lecture was printed in full by the Cape Times with an editorial. Gandhiji had
the lecture printed as a souvenir and sent complimentary copies to many
influential Europeans.
-I
158

INDIA, BRITAIN AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST

APARTHEID38

I hope you will excuse me if I do not deal with the current developments, or
with the sad record of betrayals by successive British Governments of their
solemn undertakings to Africans and Indians in South Africa, but confine my
remarks mainly to certain historical aspects of the shared destiny of Britain, India
and South Africa.

My main purpose today is to pay tribute to the anti-apartheid Britain which has
inspired me and helped me to do whatever I have been able to do in the United
Nations against apartheid for over two decades. I am proud to have been
associated for many years with Father Huddleston who is a national of Britain but
has such close family connections with India that he is one of us, and who spent
the best years of his life in South Africa and in the vanguard of the struggle
against apartheid.

I wish to pay tribute to those - sometimes far too few in this country - who
recognised long ago that Africans in South Africa are human; to hundreds of
thousands who marched in demonstrations against racism; to the thousands who
were imprisoned; to the hundreds who risked broken limbs or ruined careers to
demonstrate human solidarity in the great anti-apartheid movement which was
one of the greatest international passive resistance campaigns in support of those
in South Africa who could not carry on that form of struggle in the face of
unparalleled repression against non-violent defiance of unjust laws.

I think of the Reverend C. F. Andrews - a great Englishman and a great Indian -

who went as an envoy to South Africa in 1914 to assist M. K. Gandhi and on
several later occasions to help the Indian community in distress - and who warned
the Indian merchants, on behalf of Rabindranath Tagore and himself, that they
have no future in South Africa and deserve no future, unless they respected the
rights of the African people.

I think of Fenner Brockway, born in India and an early advocate of Indian

freedom, who took up the cause of the South African people in 1919 when he met
Sol Plaatje and tirelessly fought for their freedom for almost seven decades.

38
Lecture at a meeting at the Nehru Centre, London, on August 13, 1992, chaired by Archbishop
Trevor Huddleston
-I
159

I think of E. M. Forster, the writer, who sold out his South African stocks in the
1920s because he detested the oppression of the African miners.

I think of the Reverend Michael Scott who served in India before moving to
South Africa and received his baptism of fire in 1946.

He felt he could not stand idly by when Indian passive resisters in Durban were
being attacked by white ruffians with bicycle chains and other lethal instruments -
the police refused to intervene - when several men and women fell unconscious
from the blows and one Indian, an off-duty detective, even died.

He stood in the resistance plot with a young Indian woman, a medical student,
somewhat in fear as he was jostled. His companion was bleeding, but told him,
"Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing".

There he learnt a new dimension of the Bible from the Muslim girl - and
proceeded to start a crusade against racism in South Africa and Namibia.

I am glad we have here that teacher of Michael Scott, now a doctor in London,
Zainab Asvat, the daughter of a close associate of Gandhiji.

I think of V.K. Krishna Menon - an Indian and an Englishman - who, as

Chairman of the India League, set up the South Africa Committee, perhaps the
first committee to campaign in Britain for freedom in South Africa for Indians
and Africans alike. It was headed by Mr. Julius Silverman, M.P., a great friend
of India.

And more recently, we have had numerous other campaigners for freedom in
South Africa: to limit myself only to a few Churchmen - Father Huddleston,
Canon L. John Collins, Bishop Ambrose Reeves, Dean Gonville fFrench-
Beytagh and Archbishop Joost de Blanc of Cape Town. I have no time to
mention many others deserving of recognition and respect, but I must make two
exceptions.

In India and South Africa, we think not only of individual freedom fighters but
of families and generations. Here too you have a few.

I had the privilege of working with the late Sir Hugh Foot in the United
Nations Expert Committee on South Africa in 1964. He was so passionate, so
-I
160

crusading against apartheid that he seemed to be ahead of brothers, Dingle and

Michael who is here - and he made a significant contribution to United Nations
action against apartheid.

I cannot forget the late Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, buried here in London, opposite the
grave of Karl Marx in Highgate.

He was educated in India and went to prison first in the cause of Indian
freedom in a demonstration against the Simon Commission in London in 1929.
He spent thirty years of his life in Britain, as a student and later as an exile, went
on hunger marches of the Independent Labour Party and later marched in
numerous anti-apartheid demonstrations. He was one of the most effective
organisers of the anti-apartheid and solidarity movement in Britain and abroad.

But let us not claim him as Indian or British for, in his own homeland, South
Africa, he is hailed as one of the "giants" of the liberation movement.

What I have said, I suppose, brings out the triangular relationship of Britain,
India and South Africa - ever since the navigators bumped into the Cape on the
way to the riches of India and the gold, not knowing that far more gold was buried
under the African soil.

Both Britain and India have long-standing relations with South Africa. We
cannot speak of the anti-apartheid struggle in India in isolation from that in
Britain or in South Africa itself - and I refer to apartheid in its essence and not
merely as the official policy since 1948. Many Indians were among the activists
of the British anti-apartheid movement and many British public leaders supported
India in its efforts to defend the dignity of Indians in South Africa.

Both Britain and India are ancestral homelands of the people of South Africa.

Both Britain and India have been involved in the institution of slavery in South
Africa - soon after the Dutch set up a settlement in the Cape in 1652.

To me, slavery was the origin of apartheid though there was no segregation,
and no prohibition of inter-racial marriages or sexual relations, in the days before
slavery was abolished by the British administration in South Africa. The
resistance and revolts of the slaves are, so far as we know, the beginning of the
struggle for freedom in South Africa.
-I
161

It is little known that an Indian woman from Bengal - given a Christian name
"Mary" - was taken as a slave to the Cape in 1653, a year after Jan van Riebeeck
settled there. For the next century or more, thousands of Indians from Bengal,
Coromandel Coast and Kerala were taken to South Africa and sold into slavery -
mostly in Dutch ships, but some in Danish and British ships.

Some were bought in India from slave traders, especially the Portuguese; some
were children bought from their helpless parents during famines in Tamil Nadu;
some were servants who were cheated and sold as slaves; and some were
kidnapped. Many of these were perhaps more literate and more skilled than
their Dutch masters.

According to some scholars on slavery in South Africa, the number of slaves

from India exceeded those from Indonesia or Africa.

The Dutch settlers married some Indian women. There was extensive
miscegenation and many settlers, in their old age, formally married their
mistresses and baptised their children. As a result, numerous Afrikaner families
can trace their ancestry to Indians and perhaps half the Coloured people have
Indian ancestry.

And the Indians were also the most prominent in the slave resistance and
revolts.

So, when some people in Britain used to refer to their "kith and kin" in South
Africa in opposing the anti-apartheid movement, I was tempted to tell them that I
have more kith and kin than the British, perhaps three or four million descendants
of Indians, as against two million descendants of the British.

Last September, on a visit to South Africa, I went up Signal Hill in Cape Town,
the first stop of runaway slaves, where there are several graves of the slave
martyrs, carefully preserved by the Cape Muslim community as shrines. I could
see the harbour where my people were brought and sold as chattel, the mountains
where the runaway slaves had their hideouts, and Robben Island.

Centuries before Nelson Mandela was incarcerated there, Robben Island was
the home of Indonesian and Indian prisoners. One of them had been kidnapped in
his childhood from the beach in Surat - and imprisoned for resisting slavery.
-I
162

I said in Cape Town that the Afrikaners had been cursed for rejecting their
ancestors and inventing the false mythology of apartheid in the 19th and 20th
centuries. That is sad because researchers have now proved that Afrikaners with
black ancestry include even Paul Kruger and General Louis Botha, not to mention
some current right-wing politicians. I hope that the Afrikaners will rediscover
their history so that we in India can establish fruitful relations with them.

I must leave this history aside and jump to the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902
as that is where I would trace the ancestry of the anti-apartheid movement.

You may remember it as a disastrous and dirty war into which Britain was
dragged by Joseph Chamberlain. One of the proclaimed causes of the war was the
oppression of Indians and Africans by the Boers.

Britain sent from India over 10,000 British troops, 10,000 Indian auxiliaries
and thousands of horses. Almost ten thousand Boer prisoners of war were held in
camps all over India and many are buried there. And all the costs were charged to
the Indian exchequer, to be paid by our starving peasants.

The war was brutal and British opinion was outraged, especially by the burning
of Boer farms and the herding of Boer women and children into concentration
camps where tens of thousands perished.

No one bothered, however, about the hundred thousand Africans who were
confined in concentration camps.

There was a courageous anti-war movement in Britain, led by Emily Hobhouse,

W. T. Stead and others. The government was defeated at the next elections and
the war was brought to a close. That anti-war movement has many parallels with
the anti-apartheid movement of our time.

It was during that war, and because of that war, that the first Pan African
Conference was held in London - and proclaimed, in the words of Dr. W. E. B.
DuBois, that the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the colour
line.

When the war was over, the British administration - and later the Boer-British
alliance promoted by the British Liberals - proceeded to streamline and tighten the
oppression of the Africans, Coloured people and Indians.
-I
163

And Gandhi, who had led an ambulance corps during the Boer War, felt
compelled to lead a satyagraha from 1907 to 1914, when all Indians - merchants
and labourers, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsis - defied the unjust laws and
went to prison.

I must make a special mention of Parsis as they were a very small community
and contributed greatly, and we have several Parsis in the audience today.

The Parsis were rather privileged. I heard that a Parsi was even an attorney-
general in the Transvaal; his grandson is now a leader of trade unions. It was
rumoured that Paul Kruger had an affair with a Parsi woman.

But several Parsis went to prison in the satyagraha. Parsee Rustomjee, a rich
merchant, was one of the closest colleagues of Gandhiji, and suffered badly in
prison on more than one occasion. Sorabji Shapurji Adajania went many times to
prison.

A Parsi Member of British Parliament, Sir Muncherjee Bhownaggree, was

active in the support committee in Britain. (Dadabhai Naoroji, who had guided
Gandhiji, had left Britain for India on election as President of the Indian National
Congress). And Ratan Tata, a Parsi in India, made by far the most generous
contribution to help the satyagrahis.

Henry Polak, a Englishman articled to Gandhiji, became a loyal colleague - and

was later a great friend of India in Britain until he died in the 1950s.

Many of those who opposed the Boer War - the "pro-Boers" - helped Gandhiji
and the Indians in that struggle.

I must make special mention of several women.

- Emily Hobhouse, the saviour of Boer women and children
- Elizabeth Molteno, a school principal who was dismissed for her opposition
to the war
- Alice Green, a schoolteacher and companion of Miss Molteno, and maternal
aunt of the novelist, Graham Green

They were all socialists, feminists and pacifists - closely related to leaders of
government and public life in South Africa - and they all spent many years in
Britain.
-I
164

I wish there were more research on these great women and their opposition to
racism in South Africa.

Gandhiji promoted the establishment of a solidarity committee in Britain under

the chairmanship of Lord Ampthill, a former Governor of Madras, and it helped
greatly until the Smuts-Gandhi settlement of 1914.

Yet, unfortunately there was little sensitivity in Britain to the oppression of the
Africans - but only eagerness to get along with General Smuts and mine the gold
and diamonds.

In 1919, when the Africans in the Transvaal launched passive resistance against
pass laws, some whites on mounted horses trampled on them and indiscriminately
shot at an African crowd. But there was hardly a whisper of protest in Britain.

In 1946-47 when India raised the South African problem in the United Nations,
and when General Smuts massacred African miners on strike, the Labour
Government even arranged a Royal visit to give a certificate to South Africa.

India, for its part, became the victim of tremendous hostility in the West for
daring to oppose colonialism and racism.

There had to be patient, determined and prolonged effort to educate British

public opinion.

Many of you are veterans of that struggle, and I will not try to tell you what you
know better. Let me, however, leave this part of my remarks with one thought.

When I hear that the British Anti-Apartheid Movement may wind up or change
its character, I have an urge to say: "Please, wait, and give us, the people of India
and South Africa, a chance to build a monument for this great and glorious
movement of human solidarity.”

I will be very brief in my final remarks on the present and the future.

There is a difficult period of transition ahead in South Africa - and a democratic

government will face immense challenges in overcoming the legacy of racism and
apartheid. It will have to deal with economic stagnation, immense
unemployment, and great disparities in income and wealth. Moreover, the
enormous social problems it will inherit, especially among the Africans, the
-I
165

results of enforced segregation on racial lines, and the fragmentation of

communities will not be easy to solve even if financial resources were available.
And South Africa has become a crime-ridden and violent society - comparable
only to the ghettos in the United States and much worse.

There are naturally great expectations among the South African people.

And there are great expectations among those of us in the anti-apartheid

movement who have come to respect the liberation movement as one of the most
moral and progressive in our memory.

I am afraid we will need to lower our expectations and do all we can to help.

Britain and India, with their historic relationships with South Africa and their
great experience, can do much to help.

As for India, I believe our experience with constitution-making, affirmative

action, planning for a mixed economy, the problem of national languages, ethnic
problems and so on, can be valuable for South Africa. I refer not only to our
successes, but to our failures.

I look forward to the day when India, the new South Africa and anti-apartheid
Britain can draw inspiration from the past and work together as friends and allies
in the cause of justice.
-I
166

INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA: EXPLORING NEW

OPENINGS39

The visit of the South African Foreign Minister, R.F. Botha to India and the
signing of the protocol for the re-establishment of diplomatic and consular
relations between the two countries is an event of historic significance for both
countries.

India and South Africa, neighbours across the Indian Ocean, have had intimate
relations for centuries, but have been isolated from each other for the past half
century because of the short-sighted, irrational and cruel policy of apartheid
embraced by the National Party in South Africa in the vain hope of preserving
white domination. Our differences ceased to be bilateral, however, when Pandit
Nehru declared that the problem of Indians in South Africa had merged into the
larger problem of oppression of the African people, and India withdrew its
complaint against South Africa from the United Nations agenda. Now that the
South African people as a whole are on the way to building a non-racial
democratic society, we have no bilateral disputes to resolve and we can look
forward to the rapid development of fruitful relations for mutual benefit.

This is an occasion when we might look back into the history of our relations -
much of it little known - and look forward to the great opportunities that lie ahead.

Cyril Hromnick, a maverick South African historian, in his book Indo-Africa,

claimed that the earliest non-Africans in southern Africa were Dravidians from
South India who were attracted by the gold deposits.

Whether his hypothesis is accepted or not, there is no doubt that India had trade
with southern Africa long before the Europeans "discovered" the region on their
way to the fabulously rich India.

The Dutch established a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652. In the next
century, they took to the Cape thousands of Indians - from Bengal, Coromandel
and Malabar coast - as slaves.

A woman from Bengal, Mary, was bought for Van Riebeeck, the Governor of the
Cape, in 1653. He purchased a family from Bengal in 1655. The first of many
marriages between the Dutch and Indians was solemnised at the Cape in 1656.

39
Published in Hindustan Times, New Delhi, November 26, 1993
-I
167

Simon Van der Stel, the Governor at the end of the century after whom
Stellenbosch is named, had Indian ancestry.

I believe that at least 10 percent of the Afrikaners in South Africa, the majority
group among the whites, have Indian ancestry. They include many prominent
families and political leaders.

Perhaps half of the Coloured people of South Africa, numbering over three
million, have Indian ancestry. Dr. Abdullah Abdurahman, the most prominent
Coloured leader in the first half of this century, was descendant of a Bengali
family.

The Indian slaves not only laboured for the development of the country but were
prominent in the uprisings of slaves for freedom. Some of them were incarcerated
on Robben Island long before Nelson Mandela made it famous.) Freed Indian
slaves helped develop the wine industry in Stellenbosch.

In 1860, after slavery was abolished, Indian indentured labourers began to be

brought into South Africa as semi-slaves. They developed the agriculture in Natal
and contributed to the prosperity of the colony. They were also the first to
organise a strike in South Africa, as Oliver Tambo pointed out in his address in
some years ago.

The poor Indian workers and peasants, under the leadership of Gandhiji, led the
first great satyagraha on South African soil which was to become one of most
significant events of the twentieth century. They helped the transformation of
M.K. Gandhi into a Mahatma.

Since the late nineteenth century, the histories of India and South Africa became
intertwined.

During the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, for instance, British troops from India
were the first to be landed in South Africa. They were followed by thousands of
Indian auxiliaries. Over 9,000 Boer prisoners of war were brought to India and
housed in cantonments all over the country. Many of them died and were buried
in India. I hope that India and South Africa will soon sign an agreement on the
maintenance of the graves.

Several of the martyrs of satyagraha were buried in South Africa. They deserve
proper memorials.
-I
168

The intimate relations between the two countries were interrupted on the eve of
Indian independence as the South African Government enacted a humiliating law
against the Indians despite repeated appeals from India. India broke trade relations
with South Africa in 1946 - South Africa accounted for no less than five percent
of our trade at that time - and recalled its High Commissioner from South Africa.
In 1954, South Africa closed the Indian High Commission. Some contact between
the two countries was maintained in London and New York for some time, and
that too was broken off in 1963 when India tightened sanctions in 1963 in
response to a United Nations resolution.

India has had the strictest sanctions against South Africa among all the countries
of the world. It provided all forms of assistance, within its resources, to the South
African liberation movement. Above all, India helped greatly in promoting
international solidarity with the liberation struggle.

All through these years when India denounced apartheid and took vigorous action
against that inhuman system, it never condemned the whites. It always looked
forward to reconciliation of the people of South Africa to build a free, democratic
and prosperous land.

Now as we resume friendly relations with South Africa - significantly in the year
the Gandhi Centenary is being observed in South Africa - we need to explore the
opportunities. The relations will now be no more with the oppressed people and
their liberation movement alone, but with all the people of South Africa.

There are great possibilities for the rapid expansion of trade, investment and joint
ventures in the spirit of South-South co-operation. But it would be short-sighted
to look at the economic aspects alone.

India and South Africa as major Powers in their respective regions can play a
crucial role in promoting Asian-African solidarity, peace and international co-
operation.

India and South Africa as nations with many languages, cultures and racial origins
face similar problems as well as the opportunity to forge unity out of diversity.
They can set an example to the world by sharing their experiences and learning
from each other.
-I
169

INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA: PARTNERS IN FREEDOM AND

DEVELOPMENT40

“I am convinced, your Excellency, that we are poised to build a unique

and special partnership- a partnership forged in the crucible of history,
common cultural attributes and common struggle”.

-President Nelson R. Mandela of South Africa, at banquet hosted

by President S. D. Sharma of India, New Delhi, 25 January 1995.

The emergence of India into independence after a long struggle for freedom
against the mightiest imperial Power, and the victory of the South African people
in their equally long and difficult struggle against racist domination represent the
two main landmarks in the closing of the sad chapter of colonial-racist oppression
in human history. India and South Africa now look forward to a new era of
friendship, cooperation and joint action not only for mutual benefit but in the
cause of peace and human solidarity which have inspired their common struggle,

The agreements concluded by the two countries on January 25, 1995. for "multi-
faceted and mutually beneficial cooperation"- “in the political, economic, trade
and scientific spheres as well as in the field of technology, industry, transport,
energy, culture, public health, ecology, education. tourism, sports and exchange of
information" - are almost unprecedented in scope in the history of inter-state
relations. They reflect the bonds of friendship developed over the centuries, with
the shared experience of oppression by imperialism and racism and, above all, the
solidarity displayed by the peoples of the two nations and their liberation
movements during the course of their struggles.

Neighbours Across the Sea

India and South Africa, neighbours across the sea, have had cultural and trade
relations since ancient times. These were interrupted when they came under alien
domination and replaced by new bonds. Soon after the European adventurers set
up settlements at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, Indians began to be transported
there and forced into slavery to work in their homes and farms. When slavery was
abolished in the nineteenth century, the British administrations in India and Natal
organised the transport of Indian workers as indentured labour to develop the
plantations, mines and railways in South Africa under semi-slave conditions. As a
result, there are now over a million Indian South Africans and perhaps an even
larger number of "Coloured" and "white" South Africans of Indian ancestry.

40
Introduction to T. G. Ramamurthi (ed.) South Africa India: Partnership in Freedom and
Development. New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations and New Age International
Publishers Limited, 1995.
-I
170

With the consolidation of the power of British imperialism in both countries came
a new stage in the relations between the two peoples. The modern national
movement developed in India somewhat earlier than in South Africa. A major
episode in the history of that movement was the resistance of the Indian com-
munity in South Africa against racist oppression early in this century. Their
satyagraha, under the leadership of M.K. Gandhi, led to united national action in
India and inspired all other oppressed people in South Africa. It was one of the
most significant events of the twentieth century and will remain a bond between
the two peoples.

As the struggle for freedom developed in the two countries, the links between the
national movements of the two countries were fortified.

Mahatma Gandhi knew, and spoke with respect, about African leaders like John
Dube, the first President of the African National Congress, Walter Rubusana, the
first African member of the Cape Provincial Council, and Dr. Abdulla
Abdurahman, the leader of the Coloured people. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru met Mr.
Josiah Gumede, President of the African National Congress, and other South
Africans at the Congress against Imperialism in Brussels in 1926 and was
impressed by their spirit.

During the Second World War, fought ostensibly for freedom, British imperialism
and the racist government in South Africa made it clear that the Allied
declarations of war aims do not apply either to India or to South Africa. The
Indian National Congress launched a "Quit India" movement and the young
militants of South Africa demanded that imperialism "quit Africa". India attained
independence soon after the war, and a multiracial mass democratic movement
emerged in South Africa.

The newly-independent India was privileged to make a historic contribution, at

considerable sacrifice, to the struggle of the South African people which was
unduly prolonged as their oppressors derived sustenance from the cooperation of
imperialist Powers.

India's sacrifices cannot be compared to those of the frontline States in Africa

which suffered grievously from aggression and destabilisation by the apartheid
forces in the 1980s. Its financial contributions could not match those of some
prosperous nations which joined the anti-apartheid forces in the 1970s. But no
country equalled India in consistent diplomatic, political, economic and other
support to the cause of liberation in South Africa for well over half a century. As
President Mandela said in Delhi on 25 January 1995:
“You took up our battle as your own battle. Now that we have been
victorious, it cannot be said too often that our victory is also India's
victory”.
-I
171

The following is a brief review of India's actions in support of the struggle for
liberation in South Africa from 1946 to the establishment of the first non-racial
democratic government of South Africa in May 1994, and the subsequent
agreements for extensive cooperation between the two countries. It is followed by
selected documents on the subject - only a fraction of hundreds of statements,
speeches, etc., by the Indian government and organisations in numerous national
and inter-national fora.

Partnership with the South African People

India had direct experience of South African racism since tens of thousands of
Indians were lured into Natal in the nineteenth century with the promise of equal
rights under the law, only to become victims of constant attempts to subject them
to the inhuman oppression inflicted on the indigenous Africans. In the Smuts-
Gandhi Agreement of 1914, and the Cape Town Agreements of 1927 and 1932,
the Indian community and the Government of India were assured of a respite from
further discriminatory measures but again the promises proved illusory. With the
white monopoly of political power, white parties vied with each other to inflame
and pander to racial prejudices so that there was a constant whittling away of the
meagre rights of the non-white people. The struggle of the Indian people and the
intervention of the Indian Government enabled the Indian community to preserve
some rights denied to Africans; but the Indians were subjected to several
restrictions not applied to Africans.

This experience was a source of education for Indian South Africans and for
India. They became increasingly convinced that the small Indian community
could not gain and preserve its civil rights so long as the system of discrimination
and white monopoly of political power remained. That brought them ever closer
to the indigenous African people.

Mahatma Gandhi had always insisted that the Indians should never press for any
rights if they conflicted with the vital interests of the Africans, the sons of the soil.
As long ago as 1908, he spoke of his vision of a South Africa where "all the
different races commingle and produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has
not yet seen."

Other Indian leaders like Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, Rabindranath Tagore and Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru were outspoken in calling on the Indians in South Africa to
identify themselves with the African majority in their legitimate struggle. Public
opinion in India welcomed the emergence of a new leadership in the Indian
community in the late 1930s, advocating uncompromising resistance against
racism and joint action with other oppressed South Africans.

In that context, the determination of the South African regime to enact further
legislation to oppress and humiliate Indians - at a time when India was emerging
into independence - outraged opinion in India and ushered in the partnership of
-I
172

India with the oppressed people of South Africa in the struggle for a revolutionary
transformation of South Africa.

Historic Initiatives in 1946

Early in 1946, the South African Indian Congress decided on passive resistance in
protest against the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act. It sent a
delegation to India to consult with Mahatma Gandhi and other Indian leaders, and
appeal to the Viceroy, for support to the struggle. It called on the Indian
government, in case of intransigence by South Africa, to apply economic
sanctions against the latter and withdraw the office of its High Commissioner in
South Africa.

Public sentiment in India was so strong that the Viceroy's Executive Council
recalled the High Commissioner from South Africa and lodged a complaint with
the United Nations in June 1946 and instituted an embargo on trade with South
Africa in July. Such action by a British colony against a British dominion was
unthinkable but for the pressure of public opinion in India.

It was recognised in India that the decision would involve serious sacrifice, as
South Africa then accounted for no less than 5.5 per cent of India's exports and
1.5 per cent of imports. This trade, with a very favourable balance, was
particularly difficult to give up in the critical economic situation in 1946. The
sanctions were also painful as they curtailed communication between Indian
South Africans and their ancestral homeland. But Indian public opinion was
united in supporting the measures and never showed any regret. (This was in
sharp contrast to the attitude of Western governments which, in later years,
professed abhorrence of apartheid, but pleaded that they could not afford
sanctions against South Africa though South Africa accounted for less than one
per cent of their foreign trade.)

By the time the Indian complaint was discussed in the United Nations General
Assembly in November-December 1946, an interim national government had
been established in India with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister. The
Indian delegation to the Assembly, led by Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, stressed the
wider implications of racism in South Africa. It assisted a multi-racial deputation
from South Africa led by Dr. A.B. Xuma, President-General of the African
National Congress, which arrived in New York to contact the United Nations and
delegations of its Member States. The resolution adopted by the General
Assembly not only brought international attention to the racial situation in South
Africa but recognised that it was a matter of legitimate international concern.

At the same session of the General Assembly the Indian delegation was able to
frustrate the efforts of the South African government to secure approval for the
annexation of South West Africa (Namibia) and was highly praised by African
leaders in South Africa and Namibia.
-I
173

India also helped to develop public support in the West for the struggle of the
African people in South Africa. Mrs. Pandit and Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon
addressed a public meeting in New York with the South African deputation; the
India League in London set up a South Africa Committee to publicise the cause of
the black people in South Africa; and many friends of Indian independence began
actively to espouse the cause of freedom in South Africa.

United Nations discussions led to no amelioration of the situation of Indians in

South Africa. Instead, the new government which came to power in May 1948,
espousing apartheid, proceeded to enact even more obnoxious legislation such as
the Group Areas Act of 1950. But India's persistent diplomatic efforts ensured
awareness of the inhumanity of apartheid and the United Nations General
Assembly deplored that policy by a large majority in 1950.

The Western Powers, especially Britain and the United States, reacted with great
hostility to India as it confronted their ally and tended. to discredit their plans for
Africa in partnership with the South African regime. They even succeeded in
preventing any resolution on South Africa at the second session of the General
Assembly in 1947. The problems encountered by India soon after independence
facilitated their desire to protect South Africa from international action. India's
hopes of building friendship with all nations were undermined. The Government
and people of India, however, were not willing to compromise on the issue of
colonialism and racism. Opposition to racism in South Africa remained a major
preoccupation of Indian foreign policy.

Promoting World Opposition to Apartheid

In South Africa, the Indian passive resistance movement of 1946-48 became the
precursor of a united mass democratic movement of all the South African people.
Several Africans, Coloured people and white democrats joined the passive resis-
tance to show their solidarity. On the other hand, the Indian community rushed to
help the African mine workers during their historic strike in August 1946.

India encouraged and supported the growing unity of the oppressed people in
South Africa. Pandit Nehru, in a message to the Indian community in September
1946, said:

“The struggle in South Africa is... not merely an Indian issue... It concerns
ultimately the Africans who have suffered so much by racial
discrimination and suppression... Therefore, the Indians in South Africa
should help in every way and cooperate with the Africans”.

When Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo and Dr. G. M. Naicker, the leaders of the Transvaal
and Natal Indian Congresses, visited India in March 1947, they received a warm
-I
174

welcome from all parties not only in admiration of the struggle they led but in
approval of the agreement they had signed with Dr. A.B. Xuma, on the eve of
their departure from South Africa, for cooperation between the African and Indian
Congresses.

The Indian Congresses suspended passive resistance after the apartheid regime
came to power in May 1948. Dr. Dadoo and Dr. Naicker on their release from
prison in July, called for a "united democratic front" against racist domination and
proceeded to plan joint action with the African National Congress.

On June 26, 1952, the African National Congress and the South African Indian
Congress jointly launched the Campaign of Defiance of Unjust Laws in which
over 8,000 persons of all racial origins went to prison by defying selected racist
laws.

Opinion in India was greatly enthused. The unity of all the oppressed people in
the struggle against racism, and their choice of non-violent defiance as the means,
aroused admiration. Pandit Nehru wrote in a letter to the Chief Ministers of states
in India that the revolt of all the oppressed people had overtaken the Indian
question and "it is right that it should be so." The Indian National Congress
collected funds from the public to help the Defiance Campaign. The Indian
government joined with twelve other Asian-African governments to request the
United Nations General Assembly consider the grave situation in South Africa.
The African National Congress sent a message to Prime Minister Nehru
welcoming his initiative.

The Indian delegation led the debates in the United Nations on this matter until
Ghana and other independent African States could take over. The efforts of India
and the Asian-African Group helped publicise the enormity of discrimination and
repression in South Africa as well as the struggle of the people for freedom. The
South African government, for its part, launched vicious propaganda against
India, alleging that it had expansionist designs in Africa. It asked India to close its
High Commission in South Africa as it had become a useful channel of
communication for the oppressed people of South Africa.

The Defiance Campaign in South Africa was suspended in 1953 because of

stringent laws providing for brutal sentences, including whipping of non-violent
protesters. The ANC, however, was greatly strengthened during the campaign,
with its membership increasing from some three thousand to a hundred thousand.
The Coloured People's Congress, the Congress of Democrats (for whites) and the
South African Congress of Trade Unions were soon organised and formed a
"Congress Alliance" with the ANC and SAIC to continue united resistance
despite the difficulties. In June 1955, the alliance organised the Congress of the
People - the most representative gathering of the South African people until then -
which adopted the Freedom Charter as the banner of the struggle for liberation.
-I
175

During this period, the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in April 1955

helped greatly to promote international contacts and support for the freedom
movement in South Africa. India and other sponsors of the Conference excluded
the racist South African government from the list of invitees. Pandit Nehru invited
the two representatives of the African National Congress - Mr. Moses Kotane and
Moulvi I.A. Cachalia - to accompany him to Bandung and helped them to meet
the Presidents and Prime Ministers of many nations.

Despite repeated appeals, the South African government continued on its

disastrous course, enacting further oppressive laws and resorting to ever-
increasing repression to curb the resistance of the people. The major Western
Powers, however, continued amicable relations with that regime, considering it a
valuable ally in the "cold war" and resented India's support to the liberation
movement. They managed to secure the dissolution of the Commission on the
Racial Situation in South Africa which had been set up on the initiative of India in
1952. They exerted their influence to ensure that the United Nations resolutions
were "moderate" and toothless. But not only Asian-African States but growing
segments of public opinion in the Western countries began to support the struggle
in South Africa.

Chief Albert J. Luthuli, President-General of the African National Congress,

wrote in his autobiography:

“The way in which India at the United Nations has taken up cudgels on
behalf of the oppressed South African majority and dragged the whole
scandal of apartheid into the open, has heartened us immeasurably”.

Sharpeville Massacre and After

The Sharpeville massacre of March 21, 1960, outraged world opinion and there
were public demands in many Western countries for action. Boycott South Africa
movements had been launched in Britain and some other Western countries from
1959. Soon after the massacre, there were boycotts of South Africa by
governments, dockworkers and others in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.

Prime Minister Nehru compared the Sharpeville massacre to the Jallianwala Bagh
massacre in 1919 which marked a turning point in India's struggle for
independence. On his proposal the Indian Parliament adopted a resolution
conveying its deep sympathy to the African people of South Africa.

India joined the African States in calling on the United Nations Security Council
to consider the situation in South Africa. It supported their demands for
international sanctions against South Africa. It provided passports and assistance
to Mr. Oliver Tambo, then Deputy President of the African National Congress,
and Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, President of the South African Indian Congress, who had
-I
176

left clandestinely from South Africa at the request of their organisations to seek
international support and action. It contacted all Asian-African countries to
consult on coordinated action.

India took another decision of great political significance. Indian leaders had
already recognised that the problem of discrimination against Indians in South
Africa was linked to the larger problem of apartheid and the inhuman oppression
of the African majority. Prime Minister Nehru said in a speech in the Rajya Sabha
(upper house of Parliament) on 15 December 1958:
“The question of the people of Indian descent in South Africa has really
merged into bigger questions where not only Indians are affected but the
whole African population along with... any other people who happen to go
to South Africa and who do not belong to European or American
countries”.

After the Sharpeville massacre, he went further in a statement in the Lok Sabha
(lower house of Parliament) on 28 March 1960:

“The people of Indian descent in South Africa, as we all know, have had
to put up with a great deal of discrimination and suffering and we have
resented that. But we must remember that the African people have to put
up with something infinitely more and that, therefore, our sympathies must
go out to them even more than to our kith and kin there”.

Consequently, on India's initiative, the item on the treatment of Indians in South

Africa was dropped from the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly in
1962.

With the establishment of the Organisation of African Unity in 1963, India

welcomed the leadership of African States in pressing for action on South Africa,
and actively supported their initiatives. It helped ensure attention to the problem
in all specialised agencies of the United Nations and other intergovernmental
organisations, as well as international trade union confederations, sports bodies
and numerous other non-governmental organisations and conferences. Indian
nationals and people of Indian origin played a prominent role in the anti-apartheid
movements and activities around the world.

Many-sided Action

While the major Western Powers stubbornly opposed and vetoed mandatory
economic sanctions against South Africa, it was now possible, with the increasing
number of newly independent States in the United Nations and other international
organisations, to secure large majorities for resolutions recommending measures
to exert pressure on the South African regime and to assist the oppressed people
of South Africa and their national liberation movement. Bet it 'vas important to
ensure that all supporters of liberation fully implement the resolutions and exert
-I
177

their influence to persuade Western and other countries to join in international

action, India made an outstanding contribution in this respect.

India was scrupulous in implementing all the resolutions of the United Nations
and other bodies against apartheid.

Though India had already imposed comprehensive sanctions against South Africa,
it looked into possible further action after the United Nations General Assembly
resolution of November 6, 1962, calling for specific measures against South
Africa, and sent a detailed report to the United Nations.

In 1964, when the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid appealed
for assistance to the political prisoners and their families in South Africa, India
was the first country to make a contribution.

In 1967, India provided facilities, as well as financial and other assistance to the
ANC, to maintain its Asian Mission in New Delhi.

India not only signed and ratified the United Nation:; International Convention for
the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid but was one of the few
countries to enact legislation to implement the Convention.

At the request of the liberation movement. India used its influence to counter the
manoeuvres of the South African regimes to divide the oppressed people of South
Africa. In 1981, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi urged the Indian community in
South Africa to boycott elections to the "South African Indian Council", an
apartheid body. In 1984, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, then Minister of External
Affairs, appealed to the Indian community to boycott the elections to the
"tricameral Parliament" set up under a new racist constitution, and Mrs. Gandhi
issued an appeal, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, to the Coloured and
Indian people. These appeals helped ensure effective boycotts.

In May 1986, India, alone of all the countries of the world, declared the
Parliament members elected under this constitution prohibited immigrants.

India has been strict in implementing the sports and cultural boycott of South
Africa. In 1974, for instance, the All India Lawn Tennis Association refused to
play South Africa in the Davis Cup tennis finals, thus foregoing the possibility of
championship. Action by India was responsible for persuading the British cricket
authorities to prohibit test cricketers from playing in South Africa.

India provided assistance of various kinds to the South African liberation

movement, especially the African National Congress-including financial
assistance to the Asian Mission of the ANC in New Delhi, food, medicines and
clothing.
-I
178

India made regular contributions to United Nations funds for assistance to South
Africans. It also contributed to the International Defence and Aid Fund for
Southern Africa and the OAU Assistance Fund for the Struggle against
Colonialism and Apartheid. In addition, non-governmental organisations in India
made public collections for the liberation movement.

Special mention must be made of the provision of educational facilities in India.

A scholarship program for Africa was initiated by India as early as 1946. When
the United Nations and later the Commonwealth began educational and training
programmes, India not only made financial contributions but provided places in
educational institutions though the available places were inadequate for the needs
of Indian nationals. Hundreds of students from South Africa graduated from
Indian institutions or received in-service training in India. They include many
doctors and other professionals, as well as several activists in the struggle for
liberation.

Action in the Non-Aligned Movement, Commonwealth and Other Bodies

India, as a founding member and twice Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement

gave great attention to concerting action in support of the South African liberation
movement. Of particular significance was the initiative of Prime Minister Rajiv
Gandhi in 1986 in proposing the establishment of the AFRICA Fund to assist
frontline States and the liberation movements. Under India's Chairmanship, this
Fund has been by far the most successful fund of the Movement. The Government
of India made an initial contribution of over $ 40 million and substantial amounts
were contributed by the public for the liberation movements of South Africa and
Namibia.

India also made a significant contribution through the Commonwealth as the

largest of its members. Pandit Nehru played a crucial role in obliging South
Africa to withdraw from the Commonwealth in 1961, thus beginning the isolation
of the apartheid regime from numerous international bodies. Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi used her influence to counter moves in the United Kingdom in the
1970s to resume supplies of arms to South Africa. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi
secured Commonwealth sanctions against South Africa, despite the opposition of
the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao helped ensure an orderly and
coordinated withdrawal of sanctions against South Africa, in consultation with the
ANC, so as to facilitate negotiations for a nonracial democratic State.

India's initiatives were also important in international sports bodies in which the
African countries had little representation or influence.

Admiration and Affection for Nelson Mandela

India's identification with the South African struggle was reflected in the
admiration for Nelson Mandela. In recognition of his contribution and in support
-I
179

for his cause, India gave him the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International
Understanding for the year 1979. The citation read in part:

“In every age and on every continent a few men become symbols of
mankind's dreams and of the invincible resolve to hold aloft the torch,
whatever the hazards... Nelson Mandela of South Africa is such an
embodiment of the heroic spirit...

“Today he is behind bars but his spirit is free. And he knows that his cause
will triumph and the tyranny of apartheid will end soon.

“In honouring Nelson Mandela with the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for
International Understanding today, the people of India salute a man of
indomitable spirit, who holds firmly that all men are equal in the family of
man”.

This first international award encouraged many other countries and institutions to
honour Mr. Mandela, as a symbol of the liberation struggle. Many other honours
were bestowed by India on Mandela in prison, such as the naming of a street in
New Delhi after him. Such honours became an important part of the campaign for
the release of Mandela and other political prisoners in South Africa and for the
liberation of the country.

Indira Gandhi told the African Students Association in New Delhi on 11 January
1982:

“... we regard Nelson Mandela as one of the foremost proponents of

freedom-freedom of man. We regard him also as a friend of India. We
admire him. We have honoured him as one of our own heroes and our
thoughts are often with him and his family...”

The observance of the seventieth birthday of Nelson Mandela in 1988 was more
impressive in India than in any other country - except for Britain where the
observance was international - with a series of events involving the participation
of members of Government and Parliament, musicians, artists, sportsmen,
students and others.

The Final Phase of the Struggle and the Transition

By 1985, the apartheid regime was in a crisis. It declared a State of. Emergency
and greatly accelerated repression. On the other hand, the resistance of the people
became more widespread and determined than ever before. The movement for
sanctions began to make progress in the international community as public
opinion even in Western countries was outraged.

With the frontline States devastated by South African aggression and the
-I
180

Organisation of African Unity in difficulties, it became necessary for India to

assume a more dynamic and leading role. As noted earlier, Rajiv Gandhi, then
Prime Minister, pressed for action in the Commonwealth and secured the estab-
lishment of the AFRICA Fund of the Non-Aligned Movement. India boycotted
the Commonwealth Games in 1986 in protest against continued British
collaboration with South Africa. With Rajiv Gandhi's encouragement, an all-party
parliamentary committee for action against apartheid was set up to underline
India's solidarity and to promote action by Parliaments in other countries. A
World Youth Conference against Apartheid was organised by the Indian Youth
Congress in Delhi. The Conference was followed by a number of actions in
support of the South African liberation movement.

The unbanning of the liberatory organisations and the release of Nelson Mandela
in February 1990 were greeted with rejoicing in India. Mr. V.P. Singh, then Prime
Minister, sent an envoy to meet Mr. Mandela and convey an invitation to him.

Mr. Mandela's visit to India in October 1990 was a memorable event in Indian-
South African relations. The guest was treated as a Head of State, and was
bestowed the Bharat Ratna, the highest award of the country meant for national
heroes. The Government gave him a check for $5 million and offered 20 million
rupees in material assistance to ANC. At the conclusion of the visit, Mr. Mandela
said that he had received "love, affection and material support", and that he was
returning to South Africa "with a feeling that I was at home."

The visit provided an opportunity for discussions on means to secure the

establishment of a non-racial democratic State in South Africa. India expressed
full support to the ANC position that international sanctions against South Africa
should be maintained until irreversible steps were taken for the dismantlement of
apartheid.

While many countries were rushing to establish links with South Africa, though
still under minority rule, India stood firm in its commitment and persuaded other
countries to harmonise their actions with the views of the liberation movement.
Meanwhile, India greatly increased its educational assistance to South Africans
nominated by the ANC, including training in administration and management,
diplomacy and defence to facilitate a democratic society.

More than Solidarity

India has often been commended for its steadfast support to the liberation struggle
in South Africa by the liberation movement, as well as by international bodies.

Nelson Mandela, in a letter smuggled out of prison in 1980, paid a handsome

tribute to India for "the encouragement, the inspiration and the practical
assistance" it provided to the South African liberation movement.
-I
181

Successive Chairmen of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid

visited India to express appreciation for India's support to the struggle against
apartheid and to consult on further international action. The Committee held a
special meeting at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on October 3,
1976, to pay tribute to India on the 30th anniversary of India's initiative in
bringing South African racism to the attention of the United Nations. In 1978,
during the International Anti-Apartheid Year, the United Nations bestowed a
posthumous award on Pandit lawaharlal Nehru for his outstanding contribution in
solidarity with the struggle in South Africa.

But India regarded its support to the South African liberation struggle as no more
than a discharge of its duty. Indian leaders from Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru stressed that it was a continuation of India's own struggle for
freedom. The support was, therefore, extended in the darkest days for the South
African people, and despite the pressures from the allies of apartheid, with no
thought of recompense except the goodwill and friendship of the South African
people.

Having gone through a long struggle for liberation from the most powerful
imperialist Power, India appreciated the struggle for freedom in South Africa. It
showed understanding when the liberation movement felt obliged to abandon its
strict adherence to non-violence. It treated the leaders of the liberation movement
as honoured guests, and true representatives of the country, rather than petitioners.

India's support to South Africa has not been merely an act of solidarity to help the
people of South Africa: it was part of an effort to end colonialism and secure a
new and just world order. That was why there was no trace of patronising in the
relationship between the two countries, but a close identification. If India for
historical reasons was able to provide concrete assistance to the South African
people in their struggle for freedom, the contribution of South African people to'
India, though intangible, has been significant.

Underlying India's actions was a firm faith that the struggle for freedom would
prevail, and a belief that free India and free South Africa would establish mutually
beneficial relations. As Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon told the United Nations General
Assembly in 1956:

“My Government and my people are not without hope that that vast
population of ten million people, to all of whom that country belongs - it
does not belong merely to those whose complexions are of one kind - will
one day, however hard the road, however great the obstacles and however
severe the prejudices, break the bonds that now bind them and become
citizens of a civilised humanity. We hope that we shall be able to establish
with them unbreakable bonds of friendship and fraternity.”

That faith was vindicated.

-I
182

India and the New South Africa

India welcomed with exhilaration the historic transformation in South Africa with
the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as the President on May 10, 1994.
Rashtrapathi Bhavan (presidential palace), Parliament and other buildings in New
Delhi were illuminated as is only done for India's national day. Both houses of
Parliament adopted a resolution in which they noted that 10 May was a specially
auspicious day not only for South Africa and the continent of Africa, but also for
the people of India and the whole world.

The two countries could now consider resumption of relations interrupted by

apartheid, and means to develop fullest cooperation between governments and
peoples. India aspired, as its President declared at the banquet in honour of Mr.
Mandela on October 15, 1990, to convert the partnership of India and South
Africa into "a model of Afro-Asian solidarity and cooperation".

Following discussions during the year, the basis for cooperation was laid during
the visit of President Mandela to India as the honoured guest on Republic Day
when three agreements were signed by the two countries. Of particular
significance was the "Treaty on the Principles of Inter-State Relations and
Cooperation between the Republic of India and the Republic of South Africa"
signed by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and President Mandela on 25 January
1995. It not only recalls the traditional bonds of friendship and provides for multi-
faceted cooperation, but lays down common ideals - peace, democracy and
secular governance, fight against racism and religious fundamentalism, and a non-
violent world free of nuclear weapons.

President Mandela foresaw a unique and special partnership between the two
countries. He explained in his Rajiv Gandhi Foundation lecture on 25 January:

“...in seeking to strengthen Indo-South African relations, we do so also

motivated by the need to forge a partnership whose significance should
outstrip the narrow confines of our own self-interest. While we should
seek to exploit one another's lucrative markets; take maximum advantage
of trade and investment opportunities; expand cultural, sporting and tourist
relations; cooperate on security matters, including the combating of drug
trafficking, we would be less than equal to the tasks at hand if we did not
realise the broader canvass with which this has to take place.

“The 'natural urge of the facts of history and geography' that Nehru spoke
of, should broaden itself to include exploring the concept of an Indian
Ocean Rim of socioeconomic cooperation and other peaceful endeavours;
of a special relationship that should help improve the lot of the developing
nations in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations,
Commonwealth, and Non-aligned Movement.”
-I
183

While addressing the immediate task of assisting in the reconstruction and

development of South Africa and developing bilateral cooperation in various
fields, the two countries will need to keep in mind the wider goal of service to the
sister continents of Asia and Africa, and to the world. Speaking on the occasion of
the unveiling of the statue of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in the Indian Parliament on
January 26, President Mandela asked:

“...it would be proper in this gathering and on this day, to ask ourselves if
our shared heritage does not confer upon our two countries a special
responsibility, to jointly commit ourselves to contributing to the
emergence of a new world order in which democracy, peace and
prosperity prevail everywhere”.

India and South Africa, with their common heritage and ideals, as well as human
and material resources, can make a great contribution to the progress of the sister
continents of Asia and Africa and to genuine international cooperation.
-I
184

GANDHI, MANDELA AND THE AFRIKANERS

I have followed with great interest, admiration, indeed excitement, the courageous
efforts of President Nelson Mandela for a reconciliation between the Afrikaners
and the African people. He has shown that his determination to build a "rainbow
nation" is above transient partisan interests and calculations.

I was privileged on my recent visit to South Africa to meet General Constand

Viljoen, Mrs. Melanie Verwoerd and several other Afrikaners in the Government
and universities. I was impressed that Mr. Mandela has been able to reach the
hearts of many Afrikaners with his broad vision. That to me was one of the most
encouraging developments in South Africa, now confronted with problems and
challenges.

Nelson Mandela's gestures of friendship and respect to Afrikaners remind me of

the spirit of reconciliation preached and practised by Mahatma Gandhi in South
Africa and later in India.

In my work at the United Nations against apartheid for more than two decades, I
was inspired by Gandhi. I did as much as anyone in my position could do to
isolate the apartheid government in South Africa and assist the liberation
movements. But eschewing any hatred of the Afrikaners, I counted among my
friends not only Afrikaners who detested apartheid but several officials and
supporters of the National Party. I was encouraged by U Thant, the Secretary-
General who appointed me Principal Secretary of the Special Committee against
Apartheid in 1963, and my approach was appreciated by the liberation movement
and the African States with whom I was closely associated.

After retirement from the United Nations, I went to the graves of Boer prisoners
of war in Ambala, India, laid a wreath and knelt before the gravestone to show
that while we abhor apartheid we respect the Afrikaner people - as I reported in an
article in "Die Burger" (May 18, 1992). In that article, I pointed out that Mahatma
Gandhi, despite the repression he suffered from Afrikaner leaders, had often
praised the Afrikaners, including especially the women, for their love of the
mother tongue, and for their heroism and sacrifice in the struggle for freedom. I
believe that the Afrikaners were among those who influenced Gandhi in his
evolution into the leader of the independence struggle in India.

Every nation has in its history and traditions much to be proud of and much to be
-I
185

discarded - and Afrikaners are no exception. The tragedy of the Afrikaners and of
South Africa was that after a heroic struggle for freedom, their leaders sought to
entrench privilege instead of extending freedom.

They paid no attention to Gandhi who said in a speech in Johannesburg in 1908:

"If we look into the future, is it not a heritage we have to leave to

posterity, that all the different races commingle and produce a civilisation
that perhaps the world has never seen?"

They ignored the similar vision of Olive Schreiner who wrote in her article on
"Closer Union" in the same year:

"If it be possible for us out of our great complex body of humanity (its
parts possibly remaining racially distinct for centuries) to raise up a free,
intelligent, harmonious nation, each part acting with and for the benefit of
others, than we shall have played a part as great as that of any nation in the
world's record."

It was by recapturing that vision in the 1950s that the African National Congress
became a formidable force and attracted wide international support. There is now
the challenge - which Nelson Mandela beckons the nation to face - to march
together toward a new civilisation which South Africa, as a microcosm of the
world, is uniquely capable of creating.

The Afrikaners are themselves a "rainbow" nation - with their origins going back
to the Netherlands, Germany and France in Europe, as well as India and Indonesia
in Asia. They have built a civilisation out of these varied heritages and created a
language of which they are legitimately proud. If they have now lost the
illegitimate power and privilege they enjoyed, that is perhaps to the good - for it is
neither ethical nor wise to live on the labour of others which only leads to
lethargy. On the other hand, they are no more pariahs on the world scene or in
their lands of ancestry; all doors are open to them.

I believe it is time for the Afrikaners to join in rewriting the history of South
Africa. The contribution of numerous Afrikaners who debunked the myths of
apartheid and practised love of their fellow citizens, thereby facilitating the
process of change which resulted in the miracle of 1994, deserves to be recorded
and recognised. I am also struck by the amazing similarity between the pro-Boer
movement around the world at the turn of the century and the anti-apartheid
-I
186

movement of which I was a part - both of which moved millions of people into
solidarity with those struggling for a just cause.

The Afrikaners are not a defeated people. They were defeated in war in 1902, but
by their non-cooperation with the British occupation regime and with the
solidarity of their friends abroad, they were able to recover their dignity and
honour. The liberation movement did not vanquish the last Government and seize
power: far-sighted leaders on both sides recognised that apartheid must be buried
if an endless conflict bleeding the nation and devastating neighbouring countries
were to be averted, and all the people inhabiting South Africa were to be enabled
to join in the reconstruction and development of the country.

The political divisions which have arisen in the Afrikaner community in the
recent past, as South Africa moved towards a new democratic order, should not be
allowed to destroy the essential unity of the "volk" in its mission on this earth -
for, I believe, that Volkstaat is far more a matter of spirit than of geography. I
hope the Afrikaner people will curb the extremists who are driven by fear and
hate, grasp the hand of friendship graciously extended to them by President
Mandela, and find pride in building a new civilisation in South Africa as a whole.
-I
187

INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA: NEW CHALLENGES41

The inauguration of a democratically-elected government of national unity in

South Africa a year ago represented more than a change of administration or even
the demise of racial domination in one country. It signalled the end of a tragic era
in the history of Asia and Africa, indeed of humanity.

India, the largest colonial country, and South Africa, the victim of a special type
of colonialism, played a crucial role in bringing about the elimination of
colonialism. But they need to continue to work together to reconstruct and
develop their economies, and to face the new challenges which have emerged in
international affairs.

The two countries can now look forward to a future of closest co-operation. What
is envisaged is not merely a resumption of normal relations after a half a century
of interruption - when only the relations between the two national movements
were retained and, in fact, strengthened - but the development of extensive
relations in all fields for mutual benefit and for the benefit of humanity.

The "Treaty on the Principles of Inter-State Relations and Co-operation" signed

by India and the new South Africa on January 25, 1995, envisages co-operation in
the political, trade and scientific spheres as well as in the fields of technology,
industry, transport, energy, culture, public health, ecology, education, tourism,
sports and exchange of information. Equally important, the Treaty lays down
shared ideals - peace, democracy, secularism - and affirms the common
determination to fight against all forms of racial discrimination, terrorism, and
religious extremism.

It is now incumbent not only on the governments, but on organisations,

institutions and individuals in the two countries to develop co-operation in every
field, and in the pursuit of these ideals.

The national movements of the two countries eschewed narrow nationalism and
shared a common vision of a new world order. Mahatma Gandhi always
emphasised that vision. In 1931, for instance, when questioned by professors at
Cambridge about partnership between Britain and India, he stressed that Britain
must desist from exploitation and that the connection "should be wholly and
41
Foreword to South Africa: Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Uma Shankar Jha. New Delhi:
Jawahar Publishers and Distributors, 1996.
-I
188

solely for the benefit of mankind." He explained, according to the summary by

Mahadev Desai:

"What about the South African possessions?... I should certainly strive to

work for the deliverance of those South African races which, I can say
from experience, are ground down under exploitation. Our deliverance
must mean their deliverance. But, if that cannot come about, I would have
no interest in a partnership with Britain, even if it were of benefit to
India... India cannot reconcile herself in any shape or form to any policy
of exploitation and speaking for myself, I may say that if ever the
Congress should adopt an imperial policy I should sever my connection
with the Congress."42

The wider interests of humanity need to be underlined because the end of

colonialism and the cold war have not brought peace and security to Asia, Africa
and the rest of the "third world." Nor has there been progress toward the
democratisation of international relations. Unless genuine international co-
operation is established on the basis of human equality, it will not be possible to
address adequately the major challenges facing the world.

India and South Africa are uniquely qualified to provide leadership in efforts to
unite the developing countries, and rally support from public opinion in the rest
of the world, for this purpose. They occupy strategic positions in the two sister
continents of Asia and Africa. The freedom movements of the two countries -
with populations of varied origins, speaking many languages and professing
many faiths - have set an example of reconciliation. Their struggles for freedom,
which attracted world-wide interest and support by their statesmanship and moral
stature, have shown that human solidarity is stronger than greed, and that the
human spirit can overcome power politics. They are endowed with human and
material resources, as well as valuable experience in international co-operation.

Relations between States cannot be built on the past alone, but in the case of
India and South Africa, the past relationship has been unique and provides a firm
basis to plan the future and a lasting source of inspiration.

The common experience of oppression and resistance, the international outlook

which characterised the struggles for liberation, and the heritage of Mahatma

42
Rajagopalachari, C. and J.C. Kumarappa, The Nation's Voice, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan
Publishing House, 1947), page 200
-I
189

Gandhi led to a particularly intimate relationship in the past half a century.

India's provision of valuable assistance to the South African struggle arose from
a conviction that it was a continuation of India's own movement for national
independence. It awarded the Bharat Ratna to Nelson Mandela, thereby treating
him as an Indian patriot. The inauguration Nelson Mandela as President of
South Africa became a day of national rejoicing in India: the Rashtrapati Bhavan
and the Parliament building were illuminated as on India's national day.

I am therefore glad that this timely book on India-South African relations deals
with the proud past as well as the hopeful future. I must congratulate Dr. Uma
Shankar Jha for bringing together contributions by leading Africanists of India,
as well as those who have made notable contributions to the struggle against
apartheid. It is to be hoped that this book will be read widely in India and South
Africa, and will initiate a continuing dialogue on the development of relations
between these neighbours across the Indian Ocean.
-I
190

INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA

Dadoo Memorial Lecture, New Delhi, September 6, 1996

FIRST OF ALL, I MUST CONGRATULATE the Institute of African Studies,

and Professor Vijay Gupta, for establishing this lecture in honour of a great
fighter for freedom. This initiative is greatly appreciated in South Africa as you
will see from the messages to this meeting, because Dr. Dadoo earned universal
respect, even of his political adversaries, by his sacrifice, vision and leadership.

During the course of history, people from India have settled in all regions of the
world. And people of Indian origin have contributed to the struggles for freedom
and human rights in many countries around the globe but nowhere more than in
South Africa.

Dr. Yusuf Mohamed Dadoo is symbolic of thousands of people of Indian origin

who gave their lives, or spent long years in prison, restriction and exile, in the
struggle for the liberation of South Africa from apartheid and racism.

In honouring Dr. Dadoo, let us recall and pay tribute to the many Indian martyrs
in South Africa:

- A. Narayanaswami, Swami Nagappan, Valliamma and Harbat

Singh who gave their lives in the satyagraha led by Gandhiji;

- Pachiappan, Ragavan, Selvan, Guruwadu, Soubrayen Gounden

and other workers who were killed in the great strike during that
satyagraha;

- Kistensamy who died of brutal assault by white hooligans during

the 1946 passive resistance.

And more recently

- Suliman ("Babla") Saloojee, Ahmed Mohamed Timol and Dr.

Hoosen Mia Haffejee who were tortured to death in police custody;
and
-I
191

- Yusuf Akhalwaya, Surendra ("Lenny") Naidoo, Prakash Napier

and Krishna Rabillal who died in the armed struggle.

Let us remember the great leaders of the long struggle who passed away before
they could see the new South Africa - Ahmed Mohamed Cachalia, Parsee
Rustomjee, Thambi Naidoo, Dr. G.M. Naicker, and many, many others.

Let us also recall with respect Mahatma Gandhi who, as long ago as 1908, spoke
of his vision of a new South Africa where "all the different races commingle and
produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has not yet seen".

By their contribution to the liberation struggle, side by side with the Africans,
under the leadership of Dr. Dadoo and others, Indian South Africans have earned
not only their right to full citizenship but respect in South Africa. Gone are the
days when the minority racist regimes sought to expel the Indians from South
Africa and incited Africans against the Indians.

Indians constitute less than 3 percent of the population of South Africa. But today,
of the 25 Ministers, five are Indian. The Speaker of the Parliament is Indian and
until recently the Deputy Speaker was also Indian. The Chairman of the Law
Commission, the Director of the Commission on Higher Education and the Chief
Executive of the SABC radio are Indian. Many ambassadors are Indian.

I can think of no other country where a small minority has earned so much
recognition by its sacrifice, competence and contribution.

We cannot but admire the generosity and the statesmanship of the African
National Congress and its leader, Nelson Mandela, and, indeed, of the South
African people.
*

But Yusuf Dadoo was much more than a leader of the Indian South Africans.

He was one of the architects of the unity of the Indian and African people -
indeed, of all the oppressed people and democratic whites - a unity which brought
down the monster of apartheid.

His thinking was moulded by the legacy of Gandhiji and the Indian national
movement, by the suffering and struggles of the African people, and by the anti-
colonial and anti-fascist movements around the world. He responded to the call
-I
192

for the unity of the oppressed people and democratic whites which emanated
seventy years ago from the International Congress against Imperialism, held in
Brussels in February 1927, which was attended by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and
Josiah Gumede, the President of the African National Congress of South Africa
(ANC).

Dr. Dadoo's return to South Africa in 1936, after medical studies in Edinburgh,
was in a sense a landmark in the liberation struggle in South Africa.

That was a time when the African, Coloured and Indian people were subjected to
new oppressive measures by the Hertzog government. They needed not merely
leaders adept at drafting and presenting petitions, but freedom fighters who were
prepared to make personal sacrifices and mobilise the people in militant struggle.

Dr. Dadoo was such a fighter, fearless and ready to give his life if need be for his
convictions.

He was soon leading the Non-European United Front in the Transvaal and the
Nationalist Bloc of the Transvaal Indian Congress (TIC). Mahatma Gandhi
recognised his dedication and lent him encouragement and support.

In 1940 and 1941, Dr. Dadoo was arrested for inciting the Africans against the
war. He had already become popular among the Africans and a square in Orlando,
the African township of Johannesburg, was named after him.

In 1945, he led the struggle of the African people against the inhuman pass laws
and was elected Vice-Chairman of the Anti-Pass Council, of which Dr. A.B.
Xuma, President of the ANC, was Chairman. He was arrested in that campaign.

He was thus incarcerated thrice in struggles of the African people before he

served two terms of imprisonment in the Indian passive resistance of 1946-48
which he led with Dr. G.M. Naicker, President of the Natal Indian Congress.

In March 1947, Dr. Dadoo and Dr. Naicker signed with Dr. Xuma the pact of
cooperation between the African National Congress and the Indian Congresses of
the Transvaal and Natal.

He was one of the planners and leaders of the great Campaign of Defiance against
Unjust Laws in 1952, which led to the Congress Alliance, a fighting alliance
encompassing all the oppressed people and the white democrats.
-I
193

In appreciation of his contribution, the ANC bestowed on him its highest honour
in 1955. He was, in fact, the first to receive the award, together with Chief Luthuli
and Father Trevor Huddleston.

In later years, Dr. Dadoo was to go into exile and become one of the leaders of the
political and military struggle for liberation waged by the ANC.

Nelson Mandela described him in 1960 as "one of the most outstanding leaders in
our movement, revered throughout the country".

At his funeral in 1983, Oliver Tambo, President of the ANC, called him one of
the foremost national leaders of South Africa, a "giant" of the liberation
movement.

Walter Sisulu, the elder statesman of the ANC, in his message to this meeting,
describes him as "a giant among mortals" and "one of our foremost heroes of the
struggle for a free, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic South Africa".
*

You have done me a great honour by inviting me to deliver the first Dadoo
lecture.

My own interest in South Africa began in 1943 when, as a student in India, I

happened to read a pamphlet by Dr. Dadoo calling on the Indian community in
South Africa to fight against racist domination in cooperation with the African
majority.
-I
194

It is a happy coincidence that the Dadoo lecture is inaugurated this year.

It was in 1946, as President of the Transvaal Indian Congress and as a leader of

the Indian passive resistance movement, that Dr. Dadoo came into national
prominence and became known around the world. It was also during that year that
Dr. Dadoo was charged with inciting the great African mine workers' strike of
August 1946.

In November that year, I joined a demonstration against South African racism in

New York, led by Paul Robeson, to support the Indian passive resistance and
denounce the massacre of African mine workers. Since then my own life came to
be associated with the liberation struggle in South Africa.

I have been privileged to have had the friendship of Dr. Dadoo during the last two
decades of his life when I was able to seek and obtain his guidance in promoting
United Nations action against apartheid.

He was a man who loved life but was ready to give up all pleasures for the
struggle. A leader respected around the world, he was very modest, a foot soldier
whom I often saw in picket lines and demonstrations in London.
*

I have chosen to speak on the theme "India and South Africa". I will not attempt
to expound on the past, present and future relations between the two countries, but
will only draw attention to a few aspects of Indian-South African relations.

As this meeting is under the auspices of the Institute of African Studies, I thought
it appropriate to make special reference to the contribution of our Africanist
scholars. If I point to the deficiencies, I hope it will be understood that it is only
because of my concern for friendship between India and South Africa, and the
importance I attach to the role of scholars in informing and moulding public
opinion.

India is entitled to be proud of its consistent and unflinching support to the

liberation struggle in South Africa.

What began as an action in defence of India's honour and the rights of the Indian
minority in South Africa developed into a total identification with the struggle of
all the people, under the leadership of the African National Congress, for the
liberation of the country.
-I
195

The sacrifices made by India in solidarity with the South African people are more
than generally recognised.

By instituting the trade embargo in July 1946, India lost five percent of its exports
and one percent of its imports - and a very favourable trade balance - at a difficult
time in the aftermath of the Second World War.

Perhaps even more important, India's uncompromising opposition to racist South

Africa earned her the hostility of South Africa's allies, particularly the
governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

I believe that non-alignment proclaimed by India in September 1946 assumed its

deeper content because of the attitudes of the Western governments toward
colonialism and South African racism, which were the most important concerns of
India at the time, and especially their desire to neutralise free India. Some of you
may recall that soon after the United Nations debates on South Africa and
Namibia, John Foster Dulles, an American delegates to the United Nations and
later Secretary of State, described the interim government of India, led by Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, as the "Hindu Communist Government".

Confronting South Africa, valued by the Western Powers as a source of profit for
their corporations and a reliable ally in the cold war, required courage. It is not
generally known that when the issue of apartheid was raised by India and twelve
other countries in 1952, conspicuous among those who did not sign the request
were the two black African States in the United Nations at that time - Ethiopia
and Liberia - which were under strong American influence. The United States was
able to prevent a condemnation of apartheid until the Sharpeville massacre.

I have had occasion, as head of the United Nations Centre against Apartheid, and
even after my retirement from the United Nations, to approach the Indian
government on several occasions to suggest new actions against apartheid. India
was always ready to respond without any hesitation.

It was the first government to contribute funds to provide assistance to political

prisoners in South Africa and their families.

It gave the first major international honour to Nelson Mandela - the Nehru Award
for International Understanding for 1979.
-I
196

It was the only country to declare members of the segregated chambers of

parliament in South Africa "prohibited immigrants".

Without publicity and without seeking any recognition, India gave generous
assistance in cash and kind, including military assistance, to the liberation
movement. It provided hundreds scholarships and places in educational
institutions to South Africans.

Of special significance is the fact that all political parties and organisations in
India favoured support for the struggle against racism and apartheid.

Perhaps the first issue on which Indian public opinion was united nationally -
from "moderates" to "radicals", from students to princes - was support to the
satyagraha led by Gandhiji in South Africa early in the century.

In the 1940s, all parties supported sanctions against South Africa - and they were
instituted by the Viceroy's Executive Council in which N.B. Khare pressed for
action despite the reluctance of the Viceroy, Lord Wavell.

The decision to bestow the Nehru Award on Nelson Mandela was taken by the
Janata government, in which Atul Behari Vajpayee was the Minister of External
Affairs.

In 1986, when the Africa Fund of the Non-aligned Movement was set up on the
proposal of India, and officials in the government were considering an Indian
contribution of five or ten million dollars, there was fear that public opinion may
not appreciate a contribution when India had serious foreign exchange problems.
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, however, decided on $50 million and there was not
the slightest public opposition, but only pride at India's action.

I would also like to draw attention to the particularly valuable contribution of the
government and people of India, as well as Indians in South Africa, in organising
international support for the liberation struggle in South Africa.

Friends of Indian independence became friends of the South African struggle. The
first committee in the West set up especially to support the South African struggle
was the South Africa Committee founded in 1946 by the India League in London,
with the participation of several members of Parliament.
-I
197

In the anti-apartheid movements, Abdul Minty and Vella Pillay in London, Kader
Asmal in Dublin, Hanif Bhamjee in Wales, and Sam Ramsamy of SAN-ROC,
and many other Indian South Africans made outstanding contributions. One of the
first to court imprisonment in an anti-apartheid demonstration was Cheddi Jagan
of Guyana.

Romesh Chandra, as President of the World Peace Council, made a significant

contribution in promoting support to the ANC, and was honoured by the United
Nations in 1982.

In my contacts with numerous student, youth and other anti-apartheid groups

around the world, I found that young men and women from India were often
among the most tireless activists.

Opposition to apartheid became a passion for India. For us, this was more than
solidarity with the South African people; their struggle became our struggle.

I recall meeting Oliver Tambo, President of the ANC, in March 1983, soon after
he had returned from a visit to India. He was glowing with praise for India.
"E.S.," he said, "we have countries in Africa which are geographically the
Frontline States. But in India we have a country which is totally committed, a
Frontline State in feeling and action."
*

While referring to India’s proud record, I must warn, however, against thoughtless
exaggerations - such as that Gandhiji started the struggle against racism in South
Africa - which are untrue and insulting to the South African people who have a
great tradition of struggle against alien occupation.

I also hope that the saga of friendship between our two countries will not be
vitiated by any suggestion that India is entitled to recompense by free South
Africa.

In providing support to the liberation movement, India looked for no return for
itself or for Indian South Africans. Freedom in South Africa was the only reward
we sought because we believed that our own independence was not complete until
all colonial countries were free.
-I
198

Moreover, the history of Indian-South African relations did not consist only of
assistance by India to South Africans. We have shared experiences and our
countries influenced each other.

Gandhiji brought to India from South Africa his detestation of untouchability and
his urge for Hindu-Muslim unity because of his experience with the humiliations
in South Africa and the imperatives of resistance.

South Africa was a mirror in which he looked at Indian problems. It has remained
a factor in shaping our national thinking.

If we contributed to South Africa, South Africa has contributed to us too.

*

Our relations with South Africa did not begin in 1893 when Gandhiji went to
Natal or even in 1860 when the first shipload of Indian indentured labourers
landed in Durban. They have a long history.

Dr. Cyril Hromnik, a South African historian, claims in his book Indo-Africa,
published in 1981, that Indians had settled in southern Africa more than two
thousand years ago to exploit gold and other minerals. According to him, the term
"Bantu" comes from the Sanskrit word bandhu (relative) which the Indians used
for their African helpers or servants.

I am not competent to evaluate the archaeological and linguistic evidence he

produced in support of his thesis.

But there are records since the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652 and they are still
waiting to be studied by Indian scholars.

We used to think that it was Africa's great misfortune to be the victim of slave
trade and India's fate to have many of her sons and daughters exported as
indentured labour to toil under semi-slave conditions when slavery was abolished
in the nineteenth century.

But researches on slavery in South Africa - by scholars from South Africa, Britain
and the United States - have shown that Indians were taken to the Cape from the
1650s to be sold as slaves and that their descendants may well outnumber the
Indians in South Africa. Many of the prominent Afrikaner families have Indian
ancestors. The Coloured community of almost four million has perhaps more
-I
199

ancestors from India than from any other country or region. Some Indian slaves
learnt African languages and found refuge among Africans, especially in the
Transkei.

It may be painful to delve into this past but we cannot undo history and we should
not avoid the truth. In fact, the result may well be a coming together of the Indian
and South African peoples as we learn and acknowledge that people from Bengal,
Coromandel and Malabar are related by blood to the Afrikaner and Coloured
people of South Africa and perhaps even to the Africans.

The struggle for freedom in South Africa began with the resistance of the
indigenous people, the San and Khoisan, and the uprisings of the slaves, long
before M.K. Gandhi landed in Durban in 1893. Indians were often among the
leaders of the slave revolts.

There was considerable trade between the Dutch settlements in India and the
Cape in the 17th and 18th centuries. Trade between the two countries expanded
after the Cape came under British rule.

The Cape was the way station between India and Europe until the Suez Canal was
opened in the second half of the nineteenth century. Raja Rammohan Roy was
one of the many Indians who stopped over in the Cape on the way to Britain.

Coming closer to the twentieth century, we know of the Natal Ambulance Corps,
organised by Gandhiji during the Anglo-Boer War, and its service for a little over
a month, but we hardly know of the 7,000 Indian auxiliaries who served in South
Africa throughout the war. Many of them settled in South Africa and now form
part of the Indian community there. More than nine thousand Boer prisoners of
war were confined in camps all over Indian subcontinent. One of them even
became a scholar of Indian religions.

I would urge our scholars, in cooperation with their counterparts in South Africa,
to undertake research on the little known but significant aspects of Indian-South
African relations, to some of which I have made reference.
*

I must express my disappointment and distress at some of the recent publications

of our scholars on South Africa.
-I
200

Some of the books contain numerous errors. In one book - a symposium of

Africanists - I counted well over a thousand printing mistakes and hundreds of
errors of grammar and fact.

The Indian scholarly papers on Africa are based largely on Western sources and
reflect Western prejudices. Some of the scholars continue using derogatory
expressions about the black people taken from old British books.

Even more serious are the writings of some of our "scholars" in the years 1990-
1994 - when South Africa was undergoing a historic transformation which
inspired the world - containing unwarranted misrepresentations of the ANC,
based on the propaganda of the apartheid regime and its Indian collaborators.
Regrettably a few of the "experts" continue to peddle such trash.

In a recent article, after the elections in South Africa, a former official of the
Ministry of External Affairs, described as a frequent commentator on the All
India Radio and the press, says:

"Indians in South Africa are nostalgic about the previous regimes."

"No one can expect the Indians to suddenly think of Africans as their
brothers and fellow oppressed."

If Indians are nostalgic about the former regimes which humiliated and oppressed
them, and prefer apartheid which the whole world has denounced as a crime, I do
not see where they would belong except in a lunatic asylum.

And if the Indians cannot think of Africans as their brothers, they have no right to
a future in South Africa. As long ago as the 1920s, Rabindranath Tagore sent a
message to the Indians in South Africa that "if the Indian community could not
win the respect and affection of the Africans... then they had no place there. They
were imperialist intruders." (C.F. Andrews in The Modern Review, March 1928).
And Gandhiji wrote in Young India of April 5, 1928, that Indians "cannot exist in
South Africa for any length of time without the active sympathy and friendship of
the Africans".

Fortunately, the Indian South Africans are not as foolish as made out by this
commentator. One of the greatest contributions of Dr. Dadoo was to persuade the
Indian community that its destiny lay in cooperation with the African majority
-I
201

and all other segments of the population of South Africa to establish a nonracial
democratic society.

The former diplomat reports that Nelson Mandela had announced in 1993 that he
would treat Indians who collaborated with the apartheid regime and joined the
segregated chamber of Parliament as "traitors". And he comments:

"This is totally unfair. It is all the more unfair because Nelson Mandela
has been to India where he was honoured as a State guest and the V.P.
Singh government gave him $ 13.5 million. Besides India has given
assistance to the ANC, which runs into billions of dollars."

So far as I know, Mandela never made the statement attributed to him.

On the other hand, Rajiv Gandhi denounced these "collaborators" in 1986 - when
Mandela was in jail - and declared them "prohibited immigrants" in India. They
had gone into the so-called House of Delegates, under a constitution unanimously
denounced by the United Nations, defying an appeal by Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi and despite the opposition of all political groups of the African majority.

Mandela, in fact, talked to Amichand Rajbansi and J.N. Reddy, the leading
"collaborators", during the constitutional negotiations of 1991-93. J.N. Reddy
was, in fact, included in the first ANC list for the Parliament, and withdrew after
strong protests from the Indian community. Another "collaborator", Bhadra
Ramchod, was only recently appointed High Commissioner to Australia.

I doubt if the V.P. Singh government gave $ 13.5 million to Mandela, but I am
certain that India did not give even a fraction of "billions of dollars" to the ANC.
All the assistance of India to South Africans, including scholarships, probably
totals far less than $ 13.5 million before the beginning of transition in South
Africa in 1990.

Unless the authors, editors and publishers are more careful about avoidable errors,
Indian publications on South Africa will deserve a poor reputation.

But the ignorance and arrogance of some of the writers and commentators, as the
one I have quoted, is a different matter. It is a menace to India-South Africa
relations.
-I
202

I hope that Indian scholars will be frank in criticising their colleagues when
warranted, and that authors, editors and publishers will be held responsible for the
errors in their publications. I also hope that the government and institutions in
India will take urgent steps to obtain documentation and publications from South
Africa so that the scholars will not have to depend on Western sources and news
agencies for the study of South Africa.
*

Looking ahead, I see great prospects for cooperation between India and South
Africa, not only in the interests of their peoples but in the wider interests of the
international community.

The agreements signed during the visit of President Nelson Mandela to India in
January 1995 looked forward to a level of co-operation which is almost
unequalled in inter-State relations. They refer to "multi-faceted and mutually
beneficial cooperation" - "in the political, economic, trade and scientific spheres
as well as in the field of technology, industry, transport, energy, culture, public
health, ecology, education, tourism, sports and exchange of information".

The two countries agreed: to promote peace, democracy and secular governance;
to fight against apartheid, racial discrimination, terrorism, illegal trade in
narcotics and arms, and religious fundamentalism and extremism; and to strive to
achieve a nuclear weapon-free and non-violent world.

Nelson Mandela captured the import and spirit of these agreements when he said
that India and South Africa were "poised to build a unique and special partnership
- a partnership forged in the crucible of history, common cultural attributes and
common struggle". He stressed that this partnership should outstrip "the narrow
confines of our own self-interest" and that the two countries should "jointly
commit ourselves to contributing to the emergence of a new world order in which
democracy, peace and prosperity prevail everywhere".

If we assess the development of cooperation in that broad canvas, we cannot but

admit that we have hardly done enough since then - and I refer to both India and
South Africa - neither at the level of governments, nor at the level of businesses,
non-governmental organisations, universities, the media, scholars and individuals.

One of the great assets of India and South Africa is the existence of thousands of
vibrant non-governmental organisations. South Africa has no less than 54,000
-I
203

NGOs. But so far there has been very little interaction and networking among
NGOs in India and South Africa.

We have as yet hardly any cooperation between universities or the media. There is
almost no exchange of books, newspapers and magazines.

I say this not to criticise anyone - nor in ignorance of the progress that has been
achieved - but to urge greater public attention to see that the historic bilateral
agreements between India and South Africa do not become mere platitudes. The
efforts of governments must be supplemented by organisations, institutions and
individuals.
*

The agreements of 1995 were a challenge to us to display imagination, initiative

and determination to develop "a unique and special relationship".

The common struggle against racism, the heritage of Gandhi and the cooperation
between our national movements over many decades provide an invaluable basis
to build such a relationship, now that South Africa is a democratic State with the
ANC in power.

Trade has already increased to over $500 million - though part of that was perhaps
a transfer from indirect to direct trade - but the potential is much greater.

South Africa is only one-third the size of India and has less than one-twentieth of
the population of India. But its foreign trade is comparable to that of India. It has
developed in many fields because of close links between the South African
monopolies and Western transnationals.

There are many complementarities between Indian and South African industries.
Indian-South African economic relations can become a test of the potential of
South-South cooperation in the most sophisticated fields. But we need
determination to develop such relations since Western business is entrenched in
South Africa.

South Africa, for instance, is the largest producer of gold and diamonds while
India is a major producer and exporter of jewellery and processor of diamonds.
This is an area not only for an expansion of direct trade but for joint investment.
-I
204

India, for instance, can assist southern African countries in developing an

adequate railway network in the region. India can gain from South African
expertise in the field of mining.

As important as economic or cultural relations is constant consultation and

sharing of experience.

I wish that whenever South Africa is considering a problem, it will think of

benefiting from Indian experience - both our successes and our failures - because
we too have faced and continue to face similar problems.

Our experience in planning and in affirmative action would be valuable for South
Africa.

But we too can benefit from South Africa's experience in dealing with the
enormous task of building a democratic, nonracial and non-sexist society on the
ruins of apartheid.
*

India and South Africa have a duty to look beyond bilateral relations to
cooperation in promoting a new world order in harmony with their shared values
and vision.

India and the ANC have worked together not only in the struggle against
apartheid but in the Non-aligned Movement and other fora, and share a common
international outlook. They are both attached to democracy, non-violence,
secularism and a socialistic pattern of society.

The colonial revolution and the end of the cold war have advanced freedom and
saved mankind from the threat of thermonuclear war between superpowers, but
have not brought about a just and non-violent world order. Countries of the third
world continue to suffer from power politics and inequitable economic relations.
The gap between the richer and poorer countries and between the rich and the
poor in each country is widening. Arms trade, drug traffic, terrorism, religious
hatred and other ills menace humanity.

India and South Africa can make a significant contribution in uniting countries
and peoples to press for a democratic world order, to ensure that economic and
social development improves the lot of the poorest segments of humanity, and to
secure concerted action on issues of international concern. Their experience in
-I
205

promoting the broadest alliance of nations and public opinion in the struggle
against colonialism and apartheid points the way to a common strategy.

They must promote a new patriotism which is not confined to national boundaries
but takes into account the interests of humanity as a whole - a patriotism which
Gandhi and Nehru tried to inculcate in India and which Nelson Mandela is
advocating in South Africa.

I will not attempt to elaborate on this matter, but will conclude with President
Mandela's call to his people, which is equally applicable to Indian-South African
relations:

"Together, let us reach for the stars!"

-I
206

TRIBUTES
TO
FREEDOM FIGHTERS
-I
207

WALTER SISULU43

As international attention has rightly been focussed on Nelson Mandela as the

symbol of South African resistance, other eminent leaders of the freedom
movement languishing in apartheid prisons are little known around the world.

Among them the most deserving of respect is Walter Max Ulyate Sisulu, a mentor
of Nelson Mandela in his youth, the Secretary-General of the African National
Congress from 1949 to 1954 and the organisational genius of ANC. He was the
moving spirit behind all the great campaigns in the 1950`s, as well as the
transformation of the ANC in 1960-61 for underground work and armed struggle.

The development of the ANC into a mass movement may be traced to the
establishment of the ANC Youth League in 1944. The Youth League advocated
militant action - including boycotts, strikes and civil disobedience - for freedom
from white domination and the attainment of political independence. It was in
tune with the popular upsurge during and after the Second World War. At the
ANC Congress in 1949, it secured endorsement of its "positive action
programme" and had its slate of officers elected. Walter Sisulu, Oliver Tambo and
Nelson Mandela were members of the Youth League who have played the leading
role in the struggle for liberation since then.

Walter Sisulu was the Treasurer of the Youth League and it was in his office that
the members met to discuss strategy and tactics of the struggle. He became the
first full-time Secretary-General of the ANC in 1949.

Born in Engcobo, Transkei, on May 18, 1912, the year that the ANC was
founded, he had to leave school after Standard 4. He worked underground in the
gold mines on the Reef, as a "kitchen boy" for a white family in East London and
then in a bakery in Johannesburg. He was sacked for leading a strike at the
bakery.

As he went from job to job, he continued studies on his own and wrote articles for
the Bantu World on African heroes. He managed to set up a small business as
estate agent in the little freehold land that Africans were allowed to own in

43
Written for the 75th birthday of Walter Sisulu in May 1987. Published by the United Nations
Centre against Apartheid in its Notes and Documents No. 5/87. Also Mainstream, New Delhi,
May 16, 1987, and The Herald, Harare.
-I
208

Johannesburg, and joined the ANC in 1940.

A year before his election as Secretary-General of the ANC, the National Party
came to power, with apartheid as its policy, and began to enact a series of
repressive measures. The African, Indian and Coloured people had become
militant and there was a growing urge for unity. They saw that the regime’s
repressive laws, ostensibly directed against the Communist Party, were in fact
intended to suppress all struggles for freedom and equality. Walter plunged into
organising mass action in implementation of the new ANC programme.

The Transvaal ANC, the South African Indian Congress (SAIC), the African
People’s Organisation (mainly an organisation of Coloured people) and the
Communist Party called for demonstrations, on May Day 1950, for the repeal of
all discriminatory laws and for full franchise for all the people. The
demonstrations were a great success, with 80 percent of the workers on the
Witwatersrand going on strike. Police resorted to shooting in the evening: 18
Africans were killed and many injured.

The organisations then called for a National Day of Protest on June 26 - a date
which became the South Africa Freedom Day. Again the demonstrations all over
the country were impressive. It was estimated that 50 percent of the workers
joined the national work stoppage.

Then, after extensive preparation, the ANC and SAIC, with the support of other
organisations, launched the Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws on June
26, 1952.

Walter Sisulu was in the Joint Planning Council of the campaign, together with
Dr. J.S. Moroka and J.B. Marks of ANC and Dr. Yusuf Dadoo and Yusuf
Cachalia of SAIC. Nelson Mandela was appointed Volunteer-in-Chief and
demonstrated his great qualities of leadership.

Over 8,000 people of all racial origins from all parts of the country went to jail
defying a series of discriminatory laws. Walter Sisulu was arrested when he
entered an African location in a group of volunteers led by Nana Sita, a respected
Gandhian. He told the court before he was sentenced:

"I wish to make this solemn vow and in full appreciation of the
consequences it entails. As long as I enjoy the confidence of my people,
and as long as there is a spark of life and energy in me, I shall fight with
-I
209

courage and determination for the abolition of discriminatory laws and for
the freedom of all South Africans irrespective of colour or creed."

After the suspension of the Defiance Campaign, he went abroad in 1953, on his
only visit outside South Africa, to attend the World Festival of Youth and
Students in Bucharest and toured some countries in Europe and Asia.

On his return, he was served with a series of ever more stringent restriction
orders and was arrested numerous times. He was forced in 1954 to give up his
office as Secretary-General of ANC. He was one of the principal accused in the
treason trial which dragged on from December 1956 to March 1961 and was
detained for five months during the State of Emergency in 1960. He was
arrested six times in 1962.

But he could not be immobilised. He was behind every campaign of the ANC,
often working clandestinely. He attended the meeting of the ANC leaders in
Botswana (then Bechuanaland) in 1961 which decided on an armed struggle and
the organisation of Umkhonto we Sizwe ("Spear of the Nation"), a military wing.
He helped organise Umkhonto and set up regional commands as its Political
Commissioner.

Repression increased as Umkhonto mounted scores of acts of sabotage all over

the country from December 16, 1961.

Walter was placed under virtual house arrest in 1962. Charged with incitement
of the May 1961 strike against the proclamation of a white racist Republic and
with promoting the aims of the ANC after it was outlawed in 1960, he was
sentenced to six years` imprisonment, but released on bail pending appeal. He
went underground and on June 26, 1963, broadcast a message to his people from
a secret radio transmitter, calling for united action and new forms of struggle to
overthrow the apartheid regime.

A few days later, on July 11, Walter and other leaders were arrested at their
secret headquarters in Rivonia. They were charged, along with Nelson Mandela
who was already in prison, and sentenced in June 1964 to life imprisonment.

Reports from prison indicate that 23 years of confinement have not shaken the
faith and spirit of Walter Sisulu. He continues to inspire his colleagues in prison
and the people outside.
-I
210

As inspiring as his own life is the steadfastness and sacrifice of his family in the
freedom struggle.

Walter and Albertina, a nurse, were married in 1944. At the wedding, Nelson
Mandela was his best man. The Chairman of the Youth League, the late Anton
Lembede, warned the bride: "You are marrying a man who is already married to
the nation." As Walter dedicated his life to the liberation struggle, it was
Albertina who supported the family from 1949 - raising their five children as
well as two children of her deceased sister. They have had hardly four or five
years of normal married life.

Mrs. Albertina Notsikelelo Sisulu has also been active in the freedom struggle,
becoming a symbol of courage and determination and is acclaimed by the people
as "mother of the nation."

She joined the ANC Women’s League in the 1940`s and was elected its
Treasurer in 1959. She was an executive member of the multi-racial Federation
of South African Women when it was established in 1954, and was elected its
Transvaal President in 1963 and national President recently. She was arrested in
October 1958 in a demonstration of women in Johannesburg against pass laws.

In 1963, she and her 17-year-old son, Max, were detained for several months
and held in solitary confinement as the Security Police tried to extract
information on the whereabouts of Walter.

She was subsequently restricted under banning orders for 17 years from 1964 to
1981; for ten years she was confined to her home during nights and weekends
and prohibited from receiving visitors. When the banning orders expired at the
end of July 1981, she began speaking all over the country demanding the release
of political prisoners and an end to repression. She was again banned, from
January 1982 to July 1983, from attending any public meetings.

She was arrested in July 1983 and charged with furthering the aims of the ANC
by singing ANC songs at the funeral of a leader of the Federation of Women.
While in jail, she was elected Transvaal President of the newly-formed United
Democratic Front and then Co-President of the national UDF. She was
sentenced early in 1984 to four years in prison. While on bail pending appeal,
she was arrested again in December 1984 and charged with treason. The
charges were dropped after she spent several months in prison.
-I
211

Her eldest son, Max, fled from the country after detention in 1963 for further
studies and continues to work with the ANC external mission and other
organisations.

Her second son, Mlungisi, was detained for two weeks in August 1984, during
the elections for the segregated chambers of "Parliament" for the Coloured
people and Indians, when there was a national protest by all the black people.

Her youngest son, Zwelakhe, became a prominent black journalist and was
elected President of the Media Workers` Association of South Africa in 1981.
He was soon prohibited from working as a journalist and from union activities,
and then detained for 251 days until February 1982 without any charges.

He was a Nieman fellow at Harvard University in the United States in 1985-86.

After return to South Africa he was again detained under the latest State of
Emergency and is still in jail.

Lindiwe, older of the two daughters of Walter and Albertina, was detained after
the Soweto massacre in 1976 when she came home on holidays from her
university in Lesotho. She was held for eleven months and tortured. She left the
country after release to work in the ANC external mission.

Undeterred by all this persecution, Walter and Albertina Sisulu, and their
children, fight on with determination and unshakeable faith in the liberation of
South Africa. They and many others like them, look to the world for genuine
and effective solidarity at this critical time.
-I
212

M. P. NAICKER44

The coming together of Africans and Indians in South Africa in joint action
against racial discrimination, and the development from joint action to the
building of a united multi-racial movement, was a long and difficult process. One
of the Indians who contributed greatly to this unity was Mariemuthoo Pragalathan
Naicker - "M.P." to his many friends - who passed away ten years ago on April
29, 1977.

He was the first Indian to be appointed to a responsible position in the African

National Congress, as Director of Publicity and Information and as editor of
Sechaba, the official organ of ANC, from 1966 until he died of a heart attack on a
flight from London to Berlin.

M.P. was born on July 28, 1920, in a poor Indian family in Natal, descendants of
indentured labourers. He had little formal schooling. He began work in a factory
at an early age and then became a driver of a bakery van.

By the time he was eighteen, he had become a trade union organiser. Together
with H.A. Naidoo and George Ponnen, he organised Indian workers all over Natal
and was elected Secretary of the Natal Sugar Workers` Union. He also helped
bring about co-operation between Indian and African workers in the trade union
movement. He was arrested and beaten up while helping to organise a laundry
workers` strike in Durban. That was the first of the numerous occasions when he
was jailed by the racist authorities.

He joined the Liberal Study Circle, a forum for the study of nationalism and
Marxism, where he met with African, Coloured and white radicals. He became a
key figure in the Anti-Segregation Council of the Natal Indian Congress which
helped change the Congress from a small organisation of traders and professionals
engaged in mere petitions against discrimination into a mass movement
committed to the unity of all oppressed people and to militant action for full
equality.

Recognised as an able organiser, he was appointed Secretary of the Natal Passive

Resistance Council when the Indian Congresses launched the passive resistance
44
Written in April 1987 for the tenth anniversary of the death of M. P. Naicker. Published in Asian
Times, London, and Mainstream, New Delhi.
-I
213

campaign of 1946-1948 against the "ghetto act", in which over 2,000 men and
women courted arrest. He served four months in prison with hard labour45 and
was soon elected Secretary of the Natal Indian Congress.

In 1949 when riots broke out between Zulus and Indians in Durban, and were
fanned by white racists, he worked tirelessly with African leaders to restore peace.
African- Indian unity emerged stronger and M.P. was active in organising the
mass protests against apartheid in May-June 1950.

After the Suppression of Communism Act was passed in 1950, he was banned
under the Act from any trade union activity. He took up journalism, serving as the
editor-manager of the Durban office of Guardian, the Communist weekly, and its
successors, until they were all finally suppressed in 1963.

He helped organise the Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws in 1952, the
multi-racial passive resistance campaign in which over 8,000 people went to jail,
as Joint Secretary of the Natal Action Committee of the ANC and the Natal Indian
Congress. He served a term of imprisonment in the campaign. He also helped
organise the 1955 Congress of the People which adopted the South African
Freedom Charter. He was one of the accused in the treason trial of 156 leaders of
the freedom movement which dragged on from 1956 to 196l. He was detained for
six months during the State of Emergency in 1960. He was again detained in 1963
and, after release, charged with several Africans in Ladysmith with furthering the
aims of the ANC.

He escaped from South Africa in 1966 on instructions from the movement to

work at the ANC external mission in London.

I met M.P. soon after his arrival in London and on many occasions since then in
London and at international conferences.

I was anxious, as head of the United Nations Centre against Apartheid, to obtain
and publicise papers on the South African freedom struggle by participants in that
struggle. M.P. wrote excellent papers for us on the African Mine Labour Strike of
1946 and the Defiance Campaign of l952, and helped obtain papers from many
others in the liberation movement. He was for me one of the best sources of
information and advice on the history of the liberation struggle and the evolution
of the policies of the liberation movement.

45
He was convicted in August 1948 on the charge of aiding and abetting passive resisters to defy
the law prohibiting Indians from crossing provincial barriers without permit.
-I
214

I was always impressed not only by his knowledge and sense of responsibility, but
also by his warmth and modesty - and even more by his excellent relations with
his African colleagues in the movement.

An able and committed journalist, he became a member of the executive of the

International Organisation of Journalists and was awarded its Julius Fucik medal
in 1976.

Oliver Tambo, President of the ANC, had a high regard for him and flew to
London to attend his funeral on May 8, 1977. Two African poets - John
Matshikiza and A.N.C. Kumalo - wrote poems for his funeral. The ANC said in
its statement:

"M.P. has passed away at what is probably the beginning of the most
challenging time in the history of our struggle. We salute him for his
contribution, one which he began as a young man. And it is without
question the solid foundation he so ably helped to establish which makes it
possible for our movement to meet the demands we face in our
revolutionary struggle. The cream of our youth is flooding to the African
National Congress today and living up to the finest traditions of struggle.
This is the best tribute which can be made to M.P. and comrades like
him."
-I
215

NANA SITA, GANDHIAN IN SOUTH AFRICA46

Among those who kept the spirit of Gandhiji alive in South Africa, long after
he left the shores of that country in 1914, Nana Sita holds a special place.

Nanabhai, as he was affectionately known, came into prominence during the

Indian passive resistance movement of 1946-48 and helped build the alliance with
the African majority. He continued non-violent defiance of apartheid until his
death in 1969, serving a total of seven terms in prison, long after most militants of
the liberation movement had become convinced that underground and armed
resistance to apartheid had become imperative.

Though they disagreed with him, members of the African National Congress
and the South African Indian Congress respected his views and actions - for he
continued to defy apartheid without fear and flinching at no sacrifice.

The regime had been able to suppress organised resistance in 1963-64, with the
imprisonment and torture of thousands of leaders and activists, and a series of
repressive laws. But the adamant defiance of Nanabhai - now old and sick -
against forcible racial segregation, was an inspiration to the people. He helped
keep alive the flame of peaceful resistance which was to grow in subsequent
years.

When he passed away on December 23, 1969, at the age of 71, shortly after the
centenary of Mahatma Gandhi, the Johannesburg Star wrote that he had enjoyed
"universal respect of South Africans, white and non-white."47 Sechaba, the organ
of the African National Congress, said:

"In a heroic life, full of sacrifice and devotion to the struggle, Nana Sita
went to prison seven times.

"Towards the end of his life, Nana Sita's fame spread throughout South
Africa for his firm resistance to all Government efforts to oust him from
his home which he had occupied for 40 years... Nana Sita carried out a
personal campaign of resistance which encouraged communities
elsewhere to follow his example.
46
Distributed by Press Trust of India Features in September 1988 and published
in many Indian newspapers. Also published in Sechaba, London, August 1990. This is a slightly
revised version of the article.
47
The Star, Johannesburg, weekly edition, December 27, 1969
-I
216

"... in paying our tribute to a fallen freedom fighter, the African

National Congress works for the day when we can remember publicly in
South Africa the man who was our comrade and friend."48

The life of Nana Sita deserves to be recalled now when the leaders of the
churches led by Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Catholic Archbishop
Stephen Naidoo, the Reverend Allan Boesak, the Reverend Frank Chikane, the
Reverend Beyers Naude and others - are playing a significant role in the
freedom movement by their non-violent defiance of the edicts of the apartheid
regime.

***

Nana Sita was born in Matwadi, Gujarat, India, in 1898. He went to South
Africa in 1910 and lived for some time with the family of J.P. Vyas in Pretoria
to learn bookkeeping.

In 1914, Gandhiji, then leading a Satyagraha against the £3 poll tax on ex-
indentured Indians and other discriminatory measures imposed by the racist
authorities, went to Pretoria for negotiations with General Smuts and stayed
almost two months in the same house. Identifying himself with the indentured
labourers, Gandhiji ate only once a day, wore only a shirt and loincloth, slept on
the floor and walked barefoot several miles to the government offices.

This contact with Gandhiji had a great influence on Nanabhai's life. He followed
the simplicity of Gandhiji’s life: he was a teetotaller, vegetarian and non-
smoker. More important, he was always ready to resist injustice and take the
consequences.

He worked for some years in his uncle’s vegetable business and then started
his own business as a retail grocer.

He became active in the religious and social welfare work in the small Indian
community in Pretoria. He joined the Transvaal Indian Congress and became
secretary of its Pretoria branch in 1928.

During the Second World War, when the Government imposed new measures

48
Sechaba, London, March 1970
-I
217

to segregate the Indians and restrict their right to ownership of land -

culminating in the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act of 1946
(the "Ghetto Act") - militants in the Transvaal and Natal Indian Congresses, led
by Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo and Dr. G.M. Naicker, advocated mass resistance. They
were able to defeat the compromising leaderships of the Congresses and launch
a passive resistance campaign in June 1946 with the blessings of Gandhiji. The
campaign was directed by the Transvaal and Natal Passive Resistance Councils
and over 2,000 people went to jail.

Nana Sita was with the militants because any compromise with evil was
against his principles. He became a member of the executives of the Transvaal
Indian Congress and the Transvaal Passive Resistance Council. He acted as
Chairman when Dr. Dadoo was in prison or on missions abroad.

He led a large batch of "United Nations Day volunteers" - Indians, Africans

and Coloured people - from the Transvaal in October 1946 and was sentenced to
30 days` hard labour. After release, he went to prison a second time. Many
members of his family - he had seven children - went to prison in the
campaign.49 Nanabhai - always wearing the Gandhi cap - became a familiar
figure in the Indian movement.

His courageous spirit was reflected in his presidential address to the Transvaal
Indian Congress in 1948. He said:

"Do we all of us realise the significance, the importance, the heavy

responsibility that has been cast upon each and every one of us when we
decided to challenge the might of the Union Government with that Grey
Steel, General Smuts, at its head? Are we today acting in a manner which
can bring credit not only to the quarter million Indians in South Africa but
to those four hundred million people now enjoying Dominion Status as the
first fruits of their unequal struggle against the greatest Empire of our
times?

"It is for each and every one of us in his or her own way to answer that
question with a clear conscience. But let me say that I have nothing but

49
Ramlal Bhoolia, his eldest son, was in the first batch of Transvaal volunteers in
the campaign. He was chairman of the Transvaal Indian Congress for five years in the 1980s.
Pranlal Bhoolia, his second son, served a month in prison in the 1946 campaign. His daughter,
Maniben Sita, a teacher, went to jail twice in the passive resistance campaign and one in the 1952
Defiance Campaign. She was detained for 81 days during the State of Emergency in 1986.
-I
218

praise for those brave men and women fellow resisters of mine. History
has ordained that they should be in the forefront in the great struggle for
freedom in this colour-ridden country of eleven million people...

"Over two thousand men and women have stood by the ideal of Gandhi
and have suffered the rigours of South African prison life and they are
continuing to make further sacrifices in the cause of our freedom. We at
the head of the struggle cannot promise you a bed of roses. The path that
lies ahead of us is a dark and difficult one but as far as I am personally
concerned I am prepared to lay down my very life for the cause which I
believe to be just."50

The Indian passive resistance was suspended after the National Party regime
came to power in June 1948, but only to be replaced by the united resistance of
all the oppressed people.

Nana Sita was President of the Transvaal Indian Congress from 1949 to 1952
when he was banned under the so-called "Suppression of Communism Act".

In June 1952, the African National Congress and the South African Indian
Congress jointly launched the "Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws" in
which over 8,000 people of all racial origins were to court imprisonment.

Nanabhai was one of the first volunteers in that campaign. He led a batch of
resisters which included Walter Sisulu, Secretary-General of the African
National Congress. He came out of jail in shattered health.

The next year, when Dr. Dadoo was served with banning orders, Nanabhai
was elected President of the Transvaal Indian Congress but he was also soon
served with banning orders preventing him from active leadership of the
community.

Yet, in 1960, during the State of Emergency after the Sharpeville massacre,
he was detained for three months without any charges.

In 1962, Hercules, the section of Pretoria in which Nanabhai lived, was

declared a "white area" under the "Group Areas Act". He was ordered to vacate

50
Passive Resister, Johannesburg, April 30, 1948
-I
219

and move from his home - which he had occupied since 1923 - to Laudium, a
segregated area designated for Indians about eleven miles away. He defied the
order and was taken to court on December 10th, the Human Rights Day.

Denouncing the Group Areas Act as designed to enforce inferiority on the

non-white people and cause economic ruination of the Indian community, he
told the court overflowing with spectators:

"Sir, from what I have said, I have no hesitation in describing the Group
Areas Act as racially discriminatory, cruel, degrading, and inhuman.
Being a follower of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha, I dare
not bow my head to the provisions of the unjust Act. It is my duty to resist
injustice and oppression. I have therefore decided to defy the order and am
prepared to bear the full brunt of the law.

"It is very significant that I appear before you on this the tenth day of
December, to be condemned and sentenced for my stand on conscience.
Today is Human Rights Day - the day on which the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights was accepted by the world at the United Nations. It is a
day on which the people of the world rededicate themselves to the
principles of truth, justice and humanity. If my suffering in the cause of
these noble principles could arouse the conscience of white South Africa,
then I shall not have strived in vain.

"Sir my age is 64. I am suffering with chronic ailments of gout and

arthritis but I do not plead in mitigation. On the contrary I plead for a
severe or the highest penalty that you are allowed under the Act to impose
on me."

He was sentenced to a fine of 100 rand or three months in prison, and warned
that if he failed to comply he would be given twice that sentence. He refused to
pay the fine and spent three months in prison.

The next year, as he and his wife, Pemi, continued to occupy their home, he
was again taken to court and sentenced to six months in prison.

The authorities charged him and his wife again in 1965. He appealed to the
Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Group Areas Act. The matter
dragged on for a year before his appeal was dismissed.
-I
220

When the trial resumed in 1967, Nanabhai read a 19- page statement on the
background of the Group Areas Act which he described as a "crime against
humanity", and said:

"The Act is cruel, callous, grotesque, abominable, unjust, vicious and

humiliating.

"It brands us as an inferior people in perpetuity, condemns us as

uncivilised barbarians...

"One day the framers of this Act will stand before a much higher
authority for the misery and the humiliation they are causing....

"If you find me guilty of the offence for which I am standing before you
I shall willingly and joyfully suffer whatever sentence you may deem to
pass on me as my suffering will be nothing compared to the suffering of
my people under the Act. If my suffering in the cause of noble principles
of truth, justice and humanity could arouse the conscience of white South
Africa then I shall not have strived in vain... I ask for no leniency. I am
ready for the sentence."

Many Indians attended the trial and wept when he concluded his statement.

He was sentenced again to six months` imprisonment and served the term,
declining the alternative of a fine of 200 rand. His wife was given a suspended
sentence.

On his release from prison, he said:

"It is immaterial how many other people accept or submit to a law - or if

all people accept it. If to my conscience it is unjust, I must oppose it.

"The mind is fixed that any injustice must be resisted. So it does not
require a special decision each time one is faced with injustice - it is a
continuation of one commitment."51

Soon after, on April 8, 1968, Nanabhai and Pemi were forcibly ejected from
home and government officials dumped their belongings on the sidewalk. But

51
Quoted by Jill Chisholm in Rand Daily Mail, April 6, 1968
-I
221

they returned to the home and Nanabhai never complied with the order until he
died in December 1969.

Few others followed Nanabhai's example of determined non-violent resistance

in the 1960`s. The militants among the Indians, espousing armed struggle, had
been captured, or went into exile, or tried to rebuild underground structures
which had been smashed by the regime in 1963-64. The traders, who were
severely affected by the Group Areas Act, had given up resistance after all their
petitions, demonstrations and legal battles had failed. A silence of the graveyard
seemed to have descended over the country.

But the resistance of Nanabhai was not in vain. It showed that non-violent
defiance need not be abandoned even at a time of massive repression or armed
confrontation. It inspired people in efforts to overcome frustration and apathy.
The Indian Congresses, which had become dormant, were resuscitated in later
years and helped build the powerful United Democratic Front.

The freedom movement recovered before the Soweto massacre June 16, 1976,
which brought tens of thousands of determined youth into its ranks. Hundreds
of thousands of people began to defy the regime, making several laws
inoperative and publicly demonstrating mass support to the banned ANC and the
liberation struggle.

The mass non-violent defiance movement led by the United Democratic

Front, which swelled in recent years like a torrent, encompassing tens of
thousands of people, has made a crucial contribution, together with international
action, in forcing the racist regime to seek a peaceful settlement. South Africa,
the land where Gandhiji discovered satyagraha, has enriched his philosophy by
adapting it under most trying conditions.

Nana Sita, the foremost follower of Gandhiji in South Africa, who held up the
torch when the freedom movement was at an ebb, passed away two decades ago.
But he is remembered with respect as his colleagues in the struggle come out of
prison and exile to lead the nation towards a non-racial democratic society of his
ideals.
-I
222

MOULVI ISMAIL AHMED CACHALIA52

A Tribute on his 80th Birthday

Moulvi Ismail Ahmed Cachalia, veteran freedom fighter of South Africa,

respected by Indians and Africans alike, will be eighty on December 5th this year.

To pay tribute to him is to recall the story of one of many families, inspired by
Gandhiji, which have struggled and sacrificed for generations to end the scourge
of racism in South Africa.

Moulvi's father, Sheth Ahmad Muhammad Kachhalia, was one of the closest
colleagues of Gandhiji in the Satyagraha of 1906-1914. A merchant by
profession, he was elected chairman of the Transvaal British Indian Association in
1908 and played a key role in organising the Satyagraha.

He not only suffered imprisonment but was ruined financially. His European
creditors exerted tremendous pressure on him to abandon the struggle and, when
he refused, instituted bankruptcy proceedings against him. But he remained firm
and gained great respect in the community.

Gandhiji wrote of him:

"I have never, whether in South Africa or in India, come across a man who
could surpass Mr. Kachhalia in courage and steadfastness. He sacrificed
his all for the community’s sake. He was always a man of his word. He
was a strict orthodox Mussalman, being one of the trustees of the Surti
Meman mosque. But at the same time he looked upon Hindus and
Mussalmans with an equal eye... My close contact with him for years
leads me to hold firmly to the opinion that a community can rarely boast
of having in their midst a man of the stamp of Mr. Kachhalia."
(Satyagraha in South Africa, Chapter XVI).

Ismail was born on December 5, 1908, when his father was in prison in the

52
Written on the occasion of his 80th birthday on December 5, 1988. Distributed by Press Trust of
India Features and published in many newspapers in India. Also in The Leader, Durban, and Asian
Times, London.
-I
223

Satyagraha. His father passed away in 1918 while he was in primary school.
After completing his early education in Johannesburg, he left for India in 1924
to study at the Madressa Darul Oloom at Deoband in the United Provinces.
While in India, he met Gandhiji several times and was influenced by the non-co-
operation movement.

Returning to South Africa in 1931, he began a soft goods business in partnership

with his brother, Yusuf. But soon, as the racist regime instituted new measures
against the Indians, he got involved in the resistance.

He joined Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo and others in establishing a Nationalist Bloc

against the compromising leadership of the Transvaal Indian Congress, and
became a member of the Non-European United Front which sought to build the
unity of all racial groups in the struggle for equality.

He was one of the leaders of the Indian Passive Resistance Movement of 1946-
48, conducted under the guidance of Gandhiji, in which two thousand Indians
courted imprisonment. Some Africans, Coloured people and whites joined the
movement to show their solidarity. This second Satyagraha of the Indians, and
the contacts they made with African leaders during that time, laid the basis for
the building of a militant mass movement in South Africa.

After the apartheid regime came to power in 1948 and enacted a series of racist
laws, the African and Indian Congresses agreed on a common strategy and
launched the non-violent "Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws." Nelson
Mandela came to prominence as the Volunteer-in- Chief of the Campaign, and
Moulvi Cachalia worked closely with him as the deputy Volunteer-in-Chief.
Over eight thousand people of all racial origins went to jail violating racist laws.
Moulvi was given a suspended sentence of 18 months` imprisonment and
banned from any participation in the activities of the Congresses. But he
managed to find ways to make his contribution to the movement.

In 1955, the African National Congress and the South African Indian Congress
decided to send a delegation to the Asian-African Conference in Bandung and
chose Moses Kotane and Moulvi Cachalia as its members. Moulvi managed to
leave the country without a passport. Prime Minister Nehru arranged for the
travel of the delegation to Bandung and introduced them to many leaders at the
Conference.

When Moulvi returned to South Africa, he was placed under more stringent
-I
224

banning orders. During the State of Emergency after the Sharpeville massacre of
1960, he was again arrested and detained for three months. He was served with
further restriction orders in 1963 and placed under virtual house arrest. He
escaped from South Africa in 1964 to assist in the external work of the
Congresses.

Moulvi Cachalia represented the ANC in India from 1967 when the ANC Asian
Mission was established in New Delhi. Because of ill-health, he was obliged to
retire in the early 1970`s and has been living since then in his ancestral village
near Surat.

His wife, Miriam Bhana, also a leader of the Transvaal Indian Congress, went to
prison twice in the Indian passive resistance movement and again in the
Defiance Campaign. She passed away in 1973.

Moulvi's brother, Yusuf, was Secretary-General of the South African Indian

Congress and member of the joint planning committee for the Defiance
Campaign. He defied the laws in Johannesburg with Nelson Mandela and was
sentenced with him. He was imprisoned several times and restricted for fifteen
years from 1963. His wife, Amina - daughter of another colleague of Gandhiji,
Ebrahim I. Asvat, and a leader of the women’s movement - was also restricted.
For several years, the couple were prohibited from leaving their home at nights
and weekends.

After repeated efforts over the years, Amina and Yusuf were recently allowed to
visit Nelson Mandela in the nursing home.

The next generation of Cachalias are also playing an active role in the freedom
movement. Firoz Cachalia, a nephew of Moulvi, was restricted and detained in
1981 while a student; he is publicity secretary of the Transvaal Indian Congress
and the United Democratic Front in the Transvaal. Another nephew, Azhar
Cachalia, is national treasurer of the United Democratic Front. He has also been
detained for a long period during the State of Emergency.

For the Cachalias, as for many others smitten by Gandhiji eighty years ago, the
struggle continues in South Africa until the evil of racial discrimination is no
more.
-I
225

KATHY KATHRADA53

In the long struggle for freedom in South Africa, the Indian community, barely
three percent of the population, was privileged to contribute many activists who
dedicated their lives to the cause, never wavered under repression, and never
thought of retirement. This may be because of the lasting influence of Mahatma
Gandhi in the country, even on those who professed more radical ideologies, or
because the combined impact of Gandhi, Indian nationalism and Marxism (and
the Islamic upbringing with emphasis on human equality, in the case of some)
created a band of professional revolutionaries in the 1930s and 1940s.

Two of the activists - the late Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo whose 80th birthday will be
observed on September 5th, and Ahmed Mohamed ("Kathy") Kathrada who will
be sixty on August 21st - have been honoured by the African National Congress
with its highest decoration - Isitwalandwe Seaparankoe in recognition of their
contribution to the liberation struggle.

They regarded themselves essentially as volunteers or soldiers in the freedom

struggle, rather than as leaders, always ready to take the lead in defying the
oppressors and in making sacrifices, and exercised great influence through their
example. They rose from the struggle of the Indian community for its survival and
honour, but soon identified themselves with the African majority in the movement
for the liberation of all the people from racist tyranny and the restructuring of the
society. They joined the struggle in their childhood and suffered persecution, but
always loved life and kept their spirits high - "Doc" in exile and "Kathy" in prison
where he has been confined for half his life.

Dr. Dadoo became an influential leader and an elder statesman known around the
world. Kathy Kathrada is little known outside South Africa - and the delicate
missions he undertook for the movement are not widely known even in South
Africa. This article is devoted to his life and role in the struggle.

Kathy Kathrada was born on August 21, 1929, in a respected religious family in
Schweizer Reineke, a country town some 240 miles from Johannesburg. Moving

53
Written for his 60th birthday in prison on August 21, 1989. Distributed by Press Trust of India
Features and published in many Indian newspapers. Also by The Leader, Durban; and by Asian
Times and Caribbean Times, London.
-I
226

to Johannesburg for his schooling - as he could not be admitted in the European or

African schools in the area - he came under the influence of the leaders of the
Nationalist Bloc of the Transvaal Indian Congress and the Non-European United
Front, including Dr. Dadoo and the Cachalia brothers (Moulvi and Yusuf). He
began political work at the age of 12, handing out leaflets at street corners and
performing other volunteer work for the organisations. He helped in the individual
passive resistance against the Pegging Act in 1941 and collected funds for Bengal
famine relief in 1943.

In 1946, when the Indian community launched the Passive Resistance Movement
against the "Ghetto Act", Kathy, then only 16, gave up his schooling to do full-
time work in the office of the Passive Resistance Council in Johannesburg. He
helped edit the Passive Resister and assisted the great African mineworkers`
strike in August 1946.

In December that year, he was imprisoned for the first time as a passive resister.
Then only 17, he gave a wrong age to the police so that he would not be treated as
a juvenile but sent to prison.

He was a foundation member of the Transvaal Indian Volunteer Corps which

helped in the passive resistance campaign, and was elected secretary-general of its
successor, the Transvaal Indian Youth Congress. As the alliance between the
African and Indian Congresses developed, he came into close contact with Nelson
Mandela, Walter Sisulu, J.B. Marks and other African leaders. He worked
tirelessly to promote joint action as secretary of the Youth Action Committee of
the youth wings of the African, Indian and other congresses.

In 1951, while a student at the Witwatersrand University, he was sent by the

Transvaal Indian Youth Congress as a delegate to the World Youth Festival in
Berlin and was elected leader of the multi-racial South African delegation. He
then spent nine months at the headquarters of the World Federation of Democratic
Youth.

Returning to South Africa, he plunged into the organisation of the "Campaign of

Defiance against Unjust Laws" - launched jointly by the African National
Congress and the South African Indian Congress in 1952 - in which over eight
thousand people of all racial origins courted imprisonment. He was tried with the
leaders of the two Congresses and was given a suspended sentence of nine
months.

That was the first of three occasions when he was tried with Nelson Mandela and
-I
227

Walter Sisulu. He was in the dock with them in the treason trial of 1956-61, when
the charges were dismissed after one of the longest trials, and then in the "Rivonia
trial" of 1963-1964 when they were sentenced to life imprisonment.

He joined the protests against the Bantu Education Act of 1954, which enforced
rigid segregation in schools, and was active in the campaign against the removal
of Africans from Sophiatown in Johannesburg. The regime then served banning
orders on him prohibiting him from attending gatherings and from membership in
a long list of organisations. But he refused to be intimidated and wrote in a "letter
to the youth of South Africa":

"For nine years I have been working as a full- time official in the National
Liberatory Movement. For these nine years and more, you and the people
whom we represent have over and over again expressed your full
confidence in our policies and actions by electing me and re-electing us to
the leadership of our organisations...Now I have been ordered to resign my
positions from various organisations and not to become a member of some
39 bodies. This order comes, not from you, not from the people who
elected me, and to whom I am directly responsible, but from a fanatical
Minister of State, in the appointment of whom neither I nor the great
majority of the people of South Africa had any say...

"I am not addressing these lines to my friends and comrades as a farewell

letter... I wish to assure you that I will be at your disposal to serve you in
any manner you wish; as in the past, so at present and in the future. No
sacrifice will be too great in the struggle to achieve freedom in our
lifetime."

And, echoing Gandhi, he declared, "there is no such thing as defeat" in the cause
of freedom.

In 1955 when the Indian school in Johannesburg was moved out of the city to
the segregated location of Lenasia, some 22 miles away, he helped organise the
Central Indian High School in Johannesburg. (In its short existence, this school
attracted a distinguished teaching staff and among its alumni are several present
leaders of the movement such as Aziz Pahad and Abdul Samad Minty.) In the
same year, he also helped organise the multi-racial "Congress of the People"
which proclaimed the "Freedom Charter" - though he could not attend it
personally.
-I
228

He was arrested in December 1956, in the nation-wide sweep of over 150

leaders of the freedom movement and went through the marathon treason trial
until the acquittal of the last batch of the accused in March 1961. Even during
the trial, he continued his political work. The regime restricted him to
Johannesburg in 1957.

He was detained, with the other defendants, when a State of Emergency was
proclaimed after the Sharpeville massacre of 1960. They decided to dismiss their
lawyers and conduct their own defence. Kathrada, accused No. 2, called Moulvi
I.A. Cachalia, also in prison, as a witness. The examination and testimony of
Moulvi - well over 300 pages of the record - is a valuable document on the
history of the struggle in South Africa.

After the end of the treason trial, Kathy spent a semi-clandestine life for over a
year, evading arrest and performing several missions. He was among the few
trusted activists responsible for the security and contacts of the "Black
Pimpernel", Nelson Mandela, as he went underground to organise resistance and
went abroad to secure support. (For Kathy had often undertaken such delicate
tasks. It was he who escorted the Reverend Michael Scott to Bechuanaland in
1949, thus enabling him to internationalise the issue of Namibia and develop the
international movement against apartheid).

When Mandela was arrested on August 5, 1962, Kathy came out into the open to
launch the "Free Mandela" campaign which was to develop into one of the
greatest international campaigns in later years. Because of this, the regime
served stringent banning orders on him on October 22, 1962, including
confinement to his flat, without any visitors, at nights and over weekends. (He
was the second person to be placed under "house arrest"; a week earlier, similar
orders were served on Mrs. Helen Joseph, respected women’s leader).

Kathy bluntly refused suggestions from the movement that he go into exile as
many others had done. On the eve of the enactment of the "90-day law" in May
1963, with the imminence of indefinite and incommunicado detention, he went
underground, disguised as "Pedro", the Portuguese. But he was arrested on July
11th in Rivonia where he went to attend a meeting. His defence in the "Rivonia
trial" of 1963-64 reflected his courage, his defiance and his wit.

Kathy has spent over 26 years in prison. The child who left school to learn in the
struggle, now became an avid student turning his prison cell into a university.
Studying by correspondence, he obtained two B.A.'s (one in bibliography) and
-I
229

two honours degrees (in history and African politics). The prison authorities
refused to allow him to pursue postgraduate studies.

He has managed to keep abreast of developments outside. His letters from

prison, according to his friends, reflect his unbounded optimism. He has spurned
offers of conditional release and, I believe, does not care to come out before his
leaders, Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu. No one knows when they will be
freed, though rumours are floated from time to time.

But one thing is certain. Even the short-sighted politicians now recognise that
the inhuman and stupid system of apartheid - a system which seeks to enthrone
those with a white skin as lords and masters with licence to oppress, exploit and
humiliate those with darker skins - is doomed. And the name of Kathy Kathrada
will be remembered with respect long after the inventors and executioners of
apartheid are forgotten.
-I
230

SPORTS AND THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE

Sam Ramsamy and others who fought apartheid sport54

In South Africa, as nowhere else, sports boycott made a great contribution to

liberation. The Indian community can be proud that Indian sportspersons and
administrators were in the vanguard of this front of the anti-apartheid struggle.

I would like to extend my congratulations to Sam (Samba) Ramsamy - the

principal strategist of the struggle against apartheid sports from the mid-1970s -
on his forthcoming 60th birthday on 27 January and take this opportunity to pay
tribute to several others who fought apartheid sport at great sacrifice.

The issue of discrimination and segregation in sports was first raised during the
Indian passive resistance campaign of 1946-48. George Singh, a football star, was
among the leaders of that campaign.

A Committee for International Recognition was formed by non-racial sportsmen

in 1955 and was succeeded by the South African Sports Association (SASA) in
1958 and the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee (SAN-ROC) in 1963
- to fight against racism in sport and press for international recognition of the non-
racial sports bodies in South Africa. Their leadership was largely from the Indian
and Coloured communities as the Africans were not practising many of the codes
of sport with international affiliations.

The International Table Tennis Federation recognised the non-racial South

African Table Tennis Board (SATTB) in 1956 and expelled the white body from
South Africa. The SATTB team was able to participate in the world
championships in Stockholm in 1957. The apartheid regime then began to refuse
passports to its teams, making it clear that no one would be allowed to compete
internationally except through a white sports body.

International action against apartheid sport began in earnest in 1963. That was the
year when Sewsunker "Papwa" Sewgolum, an Indian golf caddie, won the Natal
Open Golf Championship (after winning the Dutch Open in 1959 and 1960). He
was not allowed inside the clubhouse where whites were celebrating. The

54
Published in The Leader, weekly, Durban, January 23, 1998
-I
231

photograph of "Papwa" receiving his trophy in heavy rain outside appeared in

many newspapers around the world and greatly helped the boycott of apartheid
sport. (He was banned from all major tournaments in South Africa after 1963.)

Since SAN-ROC was prevented from sending representatives abroad, the British
Anti-Apartheid Movement sent appeals to Olympic Committees and other
national sports bodies to exclude apartheid sport from international competition.
Abdul Samad Minty, honorary secretary of the Movement, lobbied delegates at
the meeting of the International Olympic Committee in Baden Baden in October
1963 on behalf of SAN-ROC. The IOC adopted a proposal by India which led to
the exclusion of South Africa from the Tokyo Olympics in 1964. It was formally
expelled from the IOC in 1970.

The response of the authorities was repression against the non-racial sports
movement.

Dennis Brutus, secretary of SASA and later President of SAN-ROC, was refused
a passport and served with stringent "banning orders". He managed to escape to
Mozambique in 1963 and tried to go to the IOC meeting, but the Portuguese
authorities handed him over to South Africa. He was incarcerated on Robben
Island and left for Britain on release. John Harris, Chairman of SAN-ROC, was
also refused a passport, restricted and then detained. Utterly frustrated, he joined a
white armed resistance movement and was executed in 1965. George Singh was
served with banning orders in 1964. SAN-ROC was paralysed, until it was
revived London in 1966.

The Vorster regime also began openly to interfere in sports. It issued a

Proclamation in February 1965, under the "Group Areas Act", prohibiting any
mixed sports or even mixed audiences, except by permit. (Until then, segregation
in sport was by "custom", not law). In the few cases when permits were granted,
the organisers were required to separate spectators by race, with six-foot wire
fences, and provide separate entrances, toilets, canteens etc. In some events, only
Coloured people and Indians were allowed.

Because of this blatant intervention and repression by the government, the United
Nations General Assembly decided in 1968 to call upon all States and
organisations to suspend sporting exchanges with South African bodies which
practise apartheid. The UN Special Committee against Apartheid began actively
to promote the sports boycott all over the world.
-I
232

Action by anti-apartheid groups, Afro-Asian countries and the United Nations

dealt severe defeats to apartheid sport. Apartheid became a major public issue in
countries with which South Africa sought sports exchanges.

A rugby tour of Britain in 1969 proved a disaster because of public

demonstrations; the British Government was obliged to prevent a cricket tour in
1970 when Afro-Asian countries threatened to boycott the Commonwealth
Games.

Massive demonstrations greeted the South African rugby tour of Australia in

1971. The South African team had to be transported in Australian Air Force
planes because of trade union action. More than 700 demonstrators were arrested
and many were injured because of police brutality. The State of Queensland
declared a state of emergency during the tour, provoking a general strike by the
trade unions.

The Conservative Government hoped to arouse racist passions and win the next
elections, but it was roundly defeated. The Labour Party Government of Gough
Whitlam announced a boycott of apartheid sport.

A proposed rugby tour of New Zealand was also aborted because of public
opposition and a threat by India and African countries to boycott the
Commonwealth Games in Christchurch in 1974.

These campaigns strengthened the anti-apartheid movements and provided

tremendous publicity to the struggle for freedom in South Africa. But the
successes led to new challenges.

South Africa remained a member of many international sports federations with

the help of its Western friends who enjoyed weighted voting in several codes of
sport like tennis. The struggle had to be carried on each of these bodies.

While South African tours of other countries could be disrupted by public action,
it was much more difficult to prevent sports administrators in Britain, New
Zealand and other countries from organising tours to South Africa.

To overcome the boycotts, South Africa began to send teams abroad with no
advance publicity, and to spend millions of rand to entice sportsmen and teams
from abroad to play in South Africa. It announced "concessions" from time to
-I
233

time, none of which satisfied the Olympic principle of non-discrimination, but

were meant to deceive the gullible.

The new situation required SAN-ROC to intensify action with constant vigilance
and a multi-pronged strategy. But it had hardly any resources. Dennis Brutus had
moved to the United States where he became a professor of English literature and
could not give adequate attention to the day-to-day work of SAN-ROC.

Fortunately, two important developments took place at this time.

The South African Council on Sport (SACOS) was established in 1973 as a non-
racial sports federation, with M.N. Pather as secretary-general. Uncompromising
on apartheid, it played a crucial role as a partner of SAN-ROC in reinforcing the
international boycott. Its declaration that there could be "no normal sport in an
abnormal society" was a powerful antidote to the propaganda of the apartheid
regime and the maneuvres of white sports bodies which made false claims of non-
discrimination.

Leaders of SACOS suffered persecution but refused to be intimidated. The

passport of M.N. Pather was seized when he was preparing to go to New York for
consultations at the invitation of the United Nations. The passport of Morgan
Naidoo, President of the SA Amateur Swimming Federation, was withdrawn in
1973 to prevent him from attending the meeting of the International Swimming
Federation; and he was banned after the apartheid swimming body was expelled
by ISF.

Secondly, Sam Ramsamy - a sportsman, administrator and college lecturer in

physical education from Durban - managed to leave for Germany to represent the
non-racial sports bodies during the Munich Olympics. After a year of study at
Leipzig, he arrived in London in 1974. A founding member of SACOS, he joined
SAN-ROC, linking internal and external resistance, became chairman of SAN-
ROC in 1976 and executive chairman of in 1978. He proved to be ideally suited to
lead the campaign in the new stage.

A tireless campaigner, he was adept at bringing people together to work as a team.

He established excellent relations with African, Indian, Caribbean and other
sports federations, and secured recognition for SACOS from the Supreme Council
for Sport in Africa. He maintained close contact with anti-apartheid groups
around the world. He also developed personal contacts with many sports editors -
and South African correspondents in London - so that the boycott received great
-I
234

attention. Above all, he was in constant consultation with colleagues in South

Africa and secured close cooperation between SAN-ROC and the ANC leadership
in exile.

New successes were achieved.

In 1976, when New Zealand Rugby Federation toured South Africa, soon after the
Soweto massacre, the New Zealand Olympic Committee declined even to express
regret. African countries then withdrew from the Montreal Olympics. Concerned
about possible disruption of Commonwealth Games, the white Commonwealth
countries agreed to the "Gleneagles Agreement" of 1977 to discourage
competition with South African teams; a similar declaration was adopted by
sports ministers of the Council of Europe next year.

There was thus the beginning of action at a governmental level in Western

countries and of "third party boycott" (of teams and countries collaborating with
apartheid sport).

Sam, who was at the time deputy principal of a large Middle School in London,
resigned his job to work full time for SAN-ROC at great personal sacrifice. He
also had to face attacks and threats from the friends of apartheid: but he and his
wife, Helga, never wavered.

He accepted my invitation in 1978 to work for three months as a consultant to the

United Nations. While performing this assignment, he was able to establish
contact with United Nations bodies and many governments. I was in constant
communication with him since then and was greatly impressed by his ability as an
organiser of public action, as well as his diplomacy in persuading governments
and sports federations to lend support.

A United Nations committee began in 1978 to draft an international convention

against apartheid sport which would provide for action against those continuing to
play with South Africa. Its task proved extremely difficult. Many governments
which supported boycott of apartheid sport were concerned that the "third party
boycott" might disrupt international sport. The Soviet Union, for instance, was
concerned about the effect on Moscow Olympics.

Intense negotiations had to be carried on for several years. Sam, because of his
personal friendship with leaders of many national Olympic Committees and his
-I
235

knowledge of their concerns, was of great help to the UN Committee. The

Convention was finally approved in 1985 and was signed by many countries.

Meanwhile, on my suggestion, the UN Special Committee against Apartheid

initiated in 1980 a "Register of Sports Contacts with South Africa", listing all
sportsmen who participated in events in South Africa. Though the United Nations
did not recommend specific action against these violators of boycott, several
governments prohibited them from entering or playing in their countries. Those
who profitted from apartheid, and showed contempt for the majority of the South
African people, they said, would not be allowed to make money in their countries.

I can now disclose that Sam Ramsamy provided us the lists of sportsmen and
sports administrators, publicised the UN Registers, contacted many governments
and sports bodies to secure action against collaborators and persuaded scores of
listed sportsmen to undertake not to play in South Africa again.

As revulsion against apartheid spread around the world, more countries began to
take action against those on the Registers. Hundreds of city councils and local
authorities in Britain and other Western countries denied them use of their sports
facilities.

The Special Committee also decided, on the suggestion of Sam, to commend

sportsmen, sports administrators and others who made significant contributions to
the boycott of apartheid sports. Most of the citations were, in fact, given on his
recommendation.

Meanwhile, there was effective public action in every country with which South
Africa hoped to maintain sports contacts. In this respect, I must make special
mention of the contribution of many Indians - notably Kader Asmal in Ireland,
Hanif Bhamjee in Wales, and Jasmat Dhiraj and Bobby Naidoo in London.

International boycott of apartheid sport was nearly complete in the 1980s. South
Africa was expelled from most international sports bodies. The International
Olympic Committee adopted a declaration against "apartheid in sport" in June 21,
1988, for the total isolation of apartheid sport. Sam was an honoured guest at
meetings of the IOC.

The time had come, however, to prepare for the possibilities which opened up for
a negotiated settlement in South Africa.
-I
236

As the sports bodies from South Africa began to approach the ANC and undertake
meaningful measures, Sam maintained close contact with the ANC headquarters
in Lusaka to avoid any appearance of differences. When a black sports body,
NOCSA, emerged in South Africa, he encouraged international support to it. As a
result, SAN-ROC was able to ensure a smooth transition from boycott to
cooperation for non-racial sport.

Sam was always firm that it was not enough to have mixed sports bodies or teams.
The sports bodies must undertake to devote resources to provide facilities and
training to the majority of the people who had, for too long, suffered from
discrimination. That has been one of his main concerns as head of the national
Olympic committee.

As South Africa proceeds to develop sport on truly non-racial lines, I hope that
the Ministry of Sport and the Olympic Committee will find ways to publicise the
long struggle that had to be waged and honour the fighters against apartheid sport
who deserve a place in the hall of fame.
-I
237

SPEECHES
-I
238

STATEMENT AT HEARING ON SOUTH AFRICA

(in connection with the International Anti-Apartheid Year)
Copenhagen, March 18, 1978

When I heard the brief but very important address by Mr. Oliver Tambo
yesterday, I recalled that it was 35 years ago, in 1943, that he had founded the
African Youth League with Mr. Nelson Mandela and others to organize the
African people to demand the rights of the African people.

That was the time when this city was under Nazi occupation. That was
the time when the governments of the United States, Britain and other countries -
and Field Marshall Jan Smuts of South Africa - were telling the world of
their war aims and the new world order which they hoped to build.

That was also the time when Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced that
"Atlantic Charter" does not apply to my country, India; the Smuts government
vowed that it does not apply to the blacks in South Africa; and the southern States
in America decided that they would put the "niggers" back in their
place.

Hardly had the war ended than the Smuts government enacted new discriminatory
laws against Indians and suppressed the African mine labour strike by brutal
violence.

But what Smuts did was not enough for some whites in South Africa whose
sympathies were in the Nazi camp. The Nationalist Party started a campaign to
scare people about the "black peril” - just because a lot of blacks had come to the
cities to work during the war. They won the elections on May 26, 1948, and set up
the apartheid regime. We will observe its 30th anniversary soon.

More than three decades have passed in the struggle by peoples of the colonial
countries to ensure that freedom is as much a right of brown and black peoples as
that of white nations.

The history of my time is the history of this struggle in which millions of people
have laid down their lives.

Mr. Oliver Tambo and his colleagues deserve tribute for their faith, their courage
and their determination in the face of heavy odds which have so far prevented the
fulfilment of their aspirations and have thereby delayed the definitive end of the
-I
239

shameful era of slavery, colonialism ad racism

As one who has been concerned with the South African problem in the United
Nations for almost thirty years, I can look back and review how the United
Nations has built up a growing consensus against apartheid, and how it has
embarked on a series of measures and activities and assistance funds, and how it
has prepared the ground for effective international action toward the elimination
of apartheid.

That is all true, and I wrote about it in a recent article in UNESCO Courier which
has been distributed at this hearing.

But at this time I am more concerned that international action has not kept pace
with the growing danger; and that half-measures and confused thinking may even
increase that danger.

That is why, I believe, it is very important that the International Anti-Apartheid

Year must become the occasion for a clear understanding of the situation and for
meaningful action, rather than merely symbolic action.

Let me review the history briefly. The problem of racism in South Africa, as you
know, has been before the United Nations almost since its inception and the
discussions have gone through several stages. Each stage has been initiated,
above all, by the course of the struggle of the South African people.

In 1946, thousands of Indians in South Africa went to jail in a passive resistance

movement - and the South African Indian Congress signed a pact with the African
National Congress. That was when the question first came up before the United
Nations as a complaint by India on the treatment of Indians in South Africa.

In 1952, the African National Congress and its allies launched the Defiance
campaign - civil disobedience of racist laws - in which 8,000 people went to jail.
That was the occasion when the whole problem of apartheid was raised by Asian-
African States as a potential threat to peace.

Following more and more repression, the liberation movement launched a mass
disobedience of pass laws in 1960 - which led to the Sharpeville massacre and the
State of' Emergency.

That was the year that the Security Council, for the first time, recognized that the
-I
240

situation in South Africa may endanger peace.

When that non-violent movement did not succeed in persuading the regime to
abandon apartheid, the liberation movement organized underground activity and
sabotage in 1962-63.

That was when the General Assembly recommended sanctions and the Security
Council decided on a so-called “voluntary" arms embargo which allowed South
Africa to increase its military budget tenfold in the next fifteen years.

In 1976-71, there was a combination of a national upsurge of youth in mass

defiance of the regime, and action by workers - both organized largely from the
underground - and the beginning of armed struggle such as the infiltration of
guerillas and the building up of caches of arms inside the country .

That was when the Security Council finally decided on a mandatory arms
embargo which is still somewhat limited in scope .

During this whole process, there has been a growing consensus in the United
Nations and in the world against apartheid.

I recall that when the issue was first brought up in the General Assembly in 1946,
South Africa challenged the right of the United Nations to discuss the issue and
proposed that a legal opinion should be obtained from the International Court. If
my memory is correct, the Nordic States voted for the South African proposal.
The move was defeated by only a narrow majority.

Again, when the whole question of apartheid was brought up in 1952, many
countries argued that the United Nations should not condemn an individual
country. Denmark moved a resolution - a very good resolution which we have
quoted often - which spoke of the need for racial equality in multi-racial societies
without in any way condemning South Africa.

In 1962, for the first time, a recommendation on concrete diplomatic, economic

and other measures was adopted in the General Assembly by only a narrow
majority and only because the African States prevented separate votes on the
different paragraphs of that resolution.

Today not a single Member State doubts the competence of the United Nations to
discuss the issue.
-I
241

The liberation movements enjoy observer status in the United Nations and the
South African government is practically excluded.

One of the easiest things in the United Nations is to get the adoption of a
resolution on apartheid - by the General Assembly, though not by the Security
Council where there is the veto.

And a number of concrete measures have been taken, including the establishment
of substantial funds for assistance to victims of apartheid. All this is very
heartening.

The world has become more concerned with apartheid and this has led to greater
concern on the problem of racism in general, all over the world.

Without the concern over apartheid, I doubt if the United Nations would have
been able to achieve unanimity on the convention against racism or to make as
much progress as it made on the race problem or several other problems.

But what of South Africa itself?

In 1960, the Security Council, the highest organ of the UN, called on South Africa
to abandon apartheid. South Africa immediately banned the ANC and the the
PAC, and increased repression.

The matter was not even considered by the Security Council for three years. In
1963, the Security Council called for an arms embargo. As I said before, South
Africa has enormously increased its military equipment since then.

Since 1965, the General Assembly has been calling for economic sanctions. The
foreign trade of South Africa - and foreign investments in South Africa - have
enormously increased since that time.

For several years, the United Nations has unanimously denounced bantustans. But
South Africa has already established two bantustans and hopes to complete the
process in five years - so that no black will be recognized as a citizen of South
Africa.

The whole world was shocked by the death of Steve Biko in prison and the
banning of 17 organizations.
-I
242

Several more prisoners have died since then but there is hardly a reaction.

There is the argument that if condemnation is kept up and if there is some

pressure, especially by the Western countries, the South African government can
be persuaded to make compromises. Some recent moves by that government have
been cited as evidence for this contention.

It the regime allows some blacks to sit on park benches but refuses to release
Nelson Mandela, is that a reason for hope? If 100 people are detained in the past
years, and nine were released, is that a hopeful sign?

Does one expect the resistance movement to hold back, and hold international
action in abeyance, in the hope that another nine would be released next month?

The acid test of any progress is, in my view, the release of political prisoners and
discussion with the liberation movement. I see no progress in that direction, but
only a constant aggravation of the situation.

In this context, there seems to be a feeling that since the South African regime can
never be persuaded to deal with the liberation movement - and since that
movement is not very popular with some governments outside - the only
"realistic" way is to promote concessions to some "third forces" which are not
radical or violent. This is, of course, a prescription to try to complicate a
liberation struggle - as in Rhodesia - and try to make blacks fight blacks.

I believe the time has come to recognize and emphasize some basic truths.

First of all, there is no possibility of persuading the South African regime to

abandon racism.

Second, there can be no liberation without the liberation movement.

Thirdly, even pressures alone are not enough.

Fourthly, every day that international sanctions are delayed, the military arsenal
of South Africa is reinforced; the foreign investments in South Africa will
increase; the South African regime will make further progress on its final
solution.
-I
243

Fifthly, while the United Nations has a very important role, it cannot by itself
liberate South Africa.

The International Anti-Apartheid Year must, therefore, be a year when the people
of every country look thoroughly at their own links with South Africa - and take
steps to break them; when the people of every country will pay heed to the
liberation movements instead of listening to those who prescribe painless
remedies.

We must, of course, build further action on the consensus which has developed
over the past thirty years.

But if we depend on consensus alone, there will be precious little action.

The International Year must be an occasion to mobilize public opinion for bold
new measures.

With this in mind, I congratulate the organisers of this hearing and the participants
for their initiatives.

I hope that Nordic governments and peoples will play a historic and crucial role in
this period - even if it means a temporary disagreement with some other Western
countries.

As Dr. DuBois said in 1900, the problem of the twentieth century is the problem
of the colour line. The history of the twentieth century is the struggle to destroy
the colour line and establish a common humanity.

Is it fair that only the oppressed peoples, the darker peoples, should bear the
burden of this struggle for all humanity?
-I
244

SPEECH AT THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT

CONFERENCE IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE STRUGGLE OF
THE STUDENTS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA

Goldsmith College, London, August 1,1987

This Conference is meeting at a time when tremendous advances have taken place
in the struggle for liberation in southern Africa and in the international solidarity
movement.

I have in mind, above all, the organization and mobilization of- the people in all
forms of struggle under very difficult conditions. Having grown up in struggle in
a colonial country, I must pay tribute to the people of South Africa and Namibia
for their tremendous achievement.

In the years after the Sharpeville massacre, and the banning of ANC and PAC, it
was difficult to protect and sustain the underground structures
of the liberation forces. Today, thousands of militants have gone underground and
are leading struggles and mass organizations involving millions of people - in
spite of the occupation of townships by the military, the indiscriminate shootings,
mass arrests and torture and even widespread terrorism by the vigilantes.

After the African mineworkers' strike was crushed in 1946 by 3 massacre, it was
difficult to sustain a large scale workers' strike for many years. But today strikes
of million workers even with the leaders in hiding, are taking place during a
State of Emergency.

The protracted student struggles since 1976, involving a million students at

times, have few parallels in history.

In 1947, when the proposal for sanctions against the South African regime was
first mooted, it was not possible to get any resolution in the United Nations
General Assembly - not a resolution on sanctions, not even the mildest resolution
deploring racial discrimination in South Africa.

Twenty-five years ago, when the General Assembly was able to adopt its first
resolution on sanctions, the majority was fragile and not a single Western country
voted for the resolution.
-I
245

Today sanctions are imposed or at least supported by an overwhelming majority

of States, including a large majority of Western States.

The international anti-apartheid movement has developed into a powerful force.

Yet, I believe that it would be wrong and dangerous to see the positive side only
and conclude that the end is easy or near.

Collaboration with apartheid has not been stopped; if it is suspended in certain

directions, it develops in other directions and through other channels.

The cold war thinking and strategies, which have made the struggle of the South
African people so difficult since they launched mass action after the Second
World War, continue to bedevil the situation.

Soon after the African National. Congress began to implement its 1949
programme of action, and built an alliance of all the oppressed and democratic
people of South Africa, and soon after India helped - internationalize the issue,
they provoked the hostility of the cold warriors.

In the early 1950s, the United States established links with the South African
intelligence which already was linked to British intelligence. Last year, the New
York Times reported that these links survived decades of universal
condemnations of apartheid and scores of United Nations resolutions.

In the 1960's, the South African naval communications. facility was built at
Silvermine with Western help and began to feed intelligence information to
British and American military establishments. That has apparently continued.

Despite the voluntary arms embargo of 1963 and the mandatory arms embargo
of 1977, South Africa continues to receive weapons systems and military
technology.

South Africa was even invited recently to send planes and pilots to Central
America and was reported to have been assured of oil supplies.

We were encouraged last year by the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of the.

United States, but. since then there have been a series of legislative measures and
moves to harass the ANC and to support UNITA and NNE.

Meanwhile, the world seems to be becoming rather callous to the enormous and
incessant violence of apartheid. There was an outrage when 68 people were killed
and 180 wounded at Sharpeville in 1960. But far greater violence, direct and
indirect, which has continued week after week in recent years, and even mass
-I
246

torture of children, does not seem to arouse indignation. The deaths from
apartheid in the past three years are not only the two thousand or so reported in
the press, but hundreds of thousands in South Africa and Namibia and the
frontline States. A thousand schools destroyed by MNR in Mozambique hardly
make news.

Action against apartheid is not high on international agenda.

On my flight here from New York, I read a report by Tel Aviv radio on July 10th
on the postponement by the "inner cabinet” of Israel of even some inconsequential
measures against apartheid proposed by an inter-departmental committee. It said:

"Ministers Rabin and Sharon mentioned the hypocritical attitude of the

world, which, while declaring sanctions against South Africa, in fact,
continues to conduct business with that country as usual. Minister Ezer
Weizman asked why decisions should be made now, when Israel is
under no pressure on the matter."

United Nations bodies - the Special Committee against Apartheid, in particular -

have kept up their efforts for international action, but they encounter enormous
resistance from the major Western Powers.

As the United Nations official in charge of apartheid from 1963 to 1984, I have
had the experience of pressure, intimidation and even blackmail from many
quarters when we tried to implement, to the best of our ability, the decisions of
the Special Committee and the General Assembly. But, at least until about 1982,
the United States and Britain did not pay too much attention to formulations and
votes on General Assembly resolutions. Since then, there has been active
opposition - whether it was a question of collaboration, or assistance to liberation
movements, or even the information activity. Delegations of smaller countries
came under great pressure.

It is in this context that the student organizations and the anti-apartheid and
solidarity movements have to consider their role, their strategies and their
action.

I feel that we need to move beyond the concept of mere solidarity - the concept
of our duty towards people struggling for freedom in another country.
-I
247

Apartheid is not a creation of the Afrikaners alone or of the British--Boer

alliance after the war of 1898-1902 but an international creation.

A former chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid said that the
while rulers of South Africa were playing the role of foremen in slave
plantations, who were the target of resentment of the slaves- while interests far
away from the plantations profited from and sustained slavery. That may be
somewhat of an exaggeration, but is essentially true.

That is why the African, Coloured and Indian people of South Africa suffered a
series of betrayals by the Imperial Government in Britain. That is why at the time
of independence, India faced great hostility from the West for taking up the
question of racism in South Africa, and the colonial problems, including Namibia,
in the United Nations.

The struggle against apartheid had to be carried on internationally. The people of

South Africa and Namibia are, of course, directly concerned since their freedom is
at stake. But many other nations have also a vital interest in destroying the link
between the West and the horrid system of slavery in South Africa -- a link which
has survived decades of United Nations resolutions.

It has often been claimed by Western delegations at the United Nations that they
shared the objectives of the majority as regards southern Africa, and that the
differences were only on the means to attain the objectives. As the liberation
struggle has advanced. it is becoming clear that the present governments of the
major western countries are, in fact, opposed to some of the fundamental
objectives of the liberation struggle.

I believe that one of the main problems in. the solidarity movement- especially in
student solidarity actions - has been the problem of coordinating action in the
major Western countries with action in other countries, especially countries
which have broken relations with South Africa.

There will need to be different approaches and campaigns, but it is not correct to
conclude that the movement in the major Western countries should concentrate
on isolation of the apartheid regime and that the movement in other countries
should concentrate on assistance to the liberation struggle.

If action is picketing South African embassies, there can, of course, be no action

in most of the world. But if action is against all governments and interests which
sustain apartheid, there is no reason why there cannot be coordinated action all
over the world.
Students in the West, especially in the United. Kingdom and the United States,
have made a tremendous contribution through the divestment campaign and the
-I
248

academic, sports: and cultural boycott. But they have also contributed on all
other aspects of the struggle.

Student action against apartheid is not and cannot be confined to the campuses.
Students need to act as citizens - citizens who are not constrained by diplomatic
considerations- not only to end collaboration by the academic community with
apartheid but to change national policies. They must encourage and join all other
segments of society for that purpose.

What we need is the broadest international mobilization and unity in the

solidarity movement paralleling that in South Africa and Namibia. Radical talk
which disrupts such unity is worse than useless in South Africa and
internationally.

Student movements have a problem of continuity. It is only when they form part
of the broader. anti-apartheid and solidarity movement that they can be sustained
and effective in a protracted struggle. On the other hand, students can take the
lead at times. Student associations can help organize anti-apartheid movements in
the many countries where they do not. yet exist.

Finally, I would like to say a few words on the role of the solidarity movement.

The South African people have fought for their rights by non-violent means
through passive resistance and made great sacrifices since Mahatma Gandhi
launched his first Satyagraha on South African soil eighty years ago in 1907.

Passive resistance has rarely changed the hearts of the oppressors.

It succeeded where it aroused the people and resulted in strong internal and
external pressure against the oppressors.

In South Africa, however, while the racist regime resorted to brutal violence
against non-violent resisters, the killing and torture of the Africans did not
sufficiently outrage the international community to
take decisive action. The passive resistance in South Africa had to be
supplemented by passive resistance in other countries - as in the Free South
Africa Movement in the United States and in student actions, in which
thousands of people have gone to prison.

The solidarity movement is thus a very significant movement for peace and non-
violence.
-I
249

Secondly, the Non-aligned Movement has often considered that its members
were obliged to take action, retaliatory action, against the protectors of the
apartheid regime. Some countries have taken such action at great sacrifice.

But in the past few years, the Non-aligned countries have been facing enormous
problems and struggling for their survival as the international economic order has
become more rather than less unjust.

But the people in Western countries are still able to take action against the
friends of apartheid - and we can only thank them and wish them all power.

In spite of the present difficulties, the governments and people of Non-aligned

countries should establish close relations with the activists in. the Western
countries. I hope that this conference will contribute to strengthening such links at
the student level.
-I
250

SPEECH AT THE AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA,

NIGERIA, JANUARY 27, 1983

Friends,

I am very happy and, in fact, very moved to be here, in a rally to inaugurate the
YUSSA (Youth Solidarity with South Africa) and to launch the campaign for the
release of that great man Nelson Mandela, because it was as a student at a
university that I first became concerned about the situation in South Africa, that
led me in 1946 to lead a demonstration in New York, in front of the South African
Consulate. I was your age at that time.

Nigeria has made many sacrifices and very valuable contributions to the
International Campaign against Apartheid, but I believe that one of the most
valuable donations that Nigeria has made to the Campaign is Alhaji Yusuff
Maitama-Sule, the present Chairman of the UN Special Committee against
Apartheid.

I an very happy to be here, in this university named after Ahmadu Bello. I

remember that long ago in 1965 or 1966, he read a speech by Nelson Mandela in
the court. He was so moved by the speech that he immediately donated £500 to
the Mandela Fund, which was not even set up at that time. So the name of
Ahmadu Bello and Nelson Mandela are very much linked in my mind…

I was last in this country in 1977 as Executive Secretary of the World Conference
for Action against Apartheid, which was held in Lagos, from 22 to 26 August
1977, in the aftermath of the Soweto massacre.

That Conference, and certain other developments, drove the regime in South
Africa to greater defiance of the world, including even the Western Powers.

The torture of Steve Biko which resulted in his death on 12 September 1977, and
the banning of all Black Consciousness organizations, in October, led to
somewhat greater acceptance of the need for international action by all the
Powers, including the United States of America. On November 4, 1977, the
United Nations Security Council finally adopted the mandatory arms embargo
against South Africa, which had been advocated by the Special Committee and
many African States, for over fifteen years.
-I
251

But since that time, the momentum for action, governmental action, seems to have
been lost, despite the repeated efforts by the Special Committee and by Nigeria.
And, therefore, it is time to consult seriously on what we can do to revive
international action and the momentum of international action…

I would say that our two countries, India and Nigeria, are for many reasons,
required, or perhaps destined, or maybe doomed, to make the greatest sacrifices in
this cause. Because of our common experience and because our national problems
are very similar, our two countries have had a very special relationship, ever since
the days when the late Mr. Tafewa Balewa was your Prima Minister, and the late
Jawaharlal Nehru was our Prime minister.

It is, therefore, not surprising if I feel very much at home here, and venture to
speak a little frankly.

When I recall the contribution of Nigeria, it is not only to perform a duty but to
consult with you about what can be done. And in this case, especially as regards
action by the public supplementing the very commendable efforts by the
Government in cooperation with the National Committee and other organizations.
I am quite sure that I am not out of order, because it was Nigeria that proposed
that the United Nations should promote public action. That was many years ago
and we have been acting on the basis of that proposal ever since.

I cannot refer to all the initiatives and actions taken by Nigeria. But I will mention
a few.

Nigeria was the country which proposed as long ago as in 1965, a campaign of
information against apartheid and encouragement of public action, especially in
Western countries. It also proposed a United Nations Fund to assist the political
prisoners in South Africa and their families.

So when the student groups organize anti-apartheid activities here, they are
translating the Nigerian proposals into real action.

Nigeria, in fact, was one of the few African countries to establish a national
committee against apartheid.

Nigeria was the first country to propose another important type of action which
was referred to, and in fact, practised what it had preached, namely, action against
corporations involved in apartheid.
-I
252

I recall that it was at the OAU Summit in Libreville in 1977, that it was decided,
on the proposal of Nigeria, that the OAU and the Centre against Apartheid should
draw up a list of corporations involved in South Africa, so that all African
Governments and even non-aligned governments could take action.

Nigeria, of course, has been a leader in the campaign for the boycott of apartheid
sports and has taken action against sportsmen who played in South Africa.

I know that it is not always easy for governments to take action. It is not only a
question of sacrifice in taking the action, but more than that. I know it from Indian
experience and the experience of African countries.

When one listens to speeches in the United Nations one feels that South Africa is
isolated, but in reality South Africa is not isolated.

When you take action against South Africa you are bound to become the victim
and object of pressures and blackmail, of all kinds of tricks.

I am sure Nigeria has faced it. I know even Nigerian Ambassadors who
have been Chairmen of my committee have been subjected to pressures or
enticements when they tried to act in support of the policies preached by Nigeria.
I make an exception to the present Chairman because I think most of the world
knows he cannot be bribed or blackmailed.

I do not say that Nigeria or any other country for that matter, should immediately
go and take over all the corporations which have branches in South Africa. One
should think of the effects on the national economy and how much one can do;
one should also think of the real usefulness of the action.

I do not suggest that you need to cut off your nose to spite your face. It is not a
matter of revenge, but of a strategy. You have to calculate whether action against
this company will have a result which will help the struggle in South Africa.

If the governments do not act on a whole lot of companies, one would understand,
one would not even press them. But all those companies should know how the
country feels and the people feel.

So I would suggest that public opinion should go beyond the level that the
government has gone.
-I
253

***

Before I say anything more, I should say that when I commend Nigeria, I
commend all governments since 1956, and all the political parties, all the leaders
of organizations which have contributed to the struggle against apartheid.

I do not have time to mention all of them, but I hope you will understand.

I recall that all the major Nigerian political parties were represented at the African
Peoples' Conference in Accra in 1958 which launched the International Campaign
for Sanctions against South Africa. Nigeria was represented at the Summit
Conference of Independent African States in Addis Ababa in 1960 when the
African Governments decided to impose sanctions: Alhaji Maitama-Sule was a
member of the delegation and met Oliver Tambo.

So Nigeria's commitment and actions go back a long way. When I came here in
1977, for the World Conference for Action against Apartheid I was very much
impressed by the public opinion in Nigeria, by the activity, not only of the
National Committee but of students, workers and others, including the media.
And I had faith because what gives continuity is the public opinion.

It was at that time that the Southern Africa Relief Fund was launched, and it was
unprecedented. I cannot think of any other country which collected money on that
scale - not only from rich businessmen and corporations but also from students
and poor people all over the country.

I also remember that in 1978, the then Commissioner for External Affairs,
Commissioner Garba, was in this university to make an address. We in New
York were highly commending the Government of Nigeria for what it was doing
and, more, everyone all over the world was commending Nigeria. But when I read
the speech, I found that he was trying to explain why they were not doing more,
because people were criticizing the government, in the universities and outside,
for not doing enough. When we have that kind of public opinion, what more can
we ask for?

***

I must say that it is not purely accidental that I have come through Kano instead
of Lagos, and that I came to Zaria first.
-I
254

Kano is not only the home of the Chairman of the Special Committee against
Apartheid.

I recall that during the World Conference for Action against Apartheid in 1977,
we had intended to bring a planeload of Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors, leaders
of liberation movements and other public leaders from all over the world, from
Lagos to Kano, to pay respects to the memory of the great Nigerian - the late
General Murtala Mohammed - who played such a crucial role at that time.

We were dissuaded only because the tribute we had intended, the tribute
to a saint, was not quite in accordance with the traditions of his religion. A year
later in 1978, the United Nations was able to honour him in the General
Assembly in New York with a posthumous award.

If my memory is correct, General Murtala Mohammed studied in Zaria. So what

you are doing here today is then very much a continuation and a tribute to him.

The public career of General Murtala Mohammed at the helm of affairs was
very brief. But he will be remembered by many of us for his dedication, vision
and courage.

His address at the summit meeting of the OAU on January 11, 1976, on Angola
and Africa is a historic document which is as relevant today as seven years ago.

I read it again, on my way here, to derive inspiration.

You may recall that he placed the problem of Angola in the context of a desire of
external forces to recreate the 19th century partition of Africa.

Next year, 1984, will be the centenary of the Conference in Berlin which
partitioned Africa. It will be the centenary of the occupation of Namibia - a
Territory whose people have been subjected to genocide and constant oppression
and who are still struggling for their deliverance while those who proclaimed a
"sacred trust" for them keep bargaining about conditions.

May I also remind you that it will be five hundred years this year since the
Portuguese landed in Angola and began an era of tragedy for Africa - and shame
for the world.
-I
255

That era must end.

It is your duty as the youth of Africa to see that it ends.

It is equally my own duty - and the duty of the youth of India to stand shoulder to
shoulder with you - because our own struggle for freedom was not for our nation
alone but was a part of the struggle of all the peoples oppressed by colonialism
and racism.

We would of course like the governments and peoples of Western countries to

join in the common effort.

The Special Committee is doing its utmost to persuade them. We are gratified by
the increasing support that has been obtained in the Western countries.

But we should always remember that the nations and organizations totally
committed to the struggle against apartheid have a duty to search constantly for
new and more effective ways of action, irrespective of action by others.

I am happy to address a meeting organized by the YUSSA because we do attach

great importance to the role of the students and youth in the movement in support
of the liberation struggle in South Africa.

Your organization has done very useful work since its establishment at a time
when the black students in South Africa were writing one of the most glorious
pages in the history of the struggle for freedom.

I recall that on, March 21, 1978, the Youth Solidarity joined the United Nations,
to launch here, the International Anti-Apartheid Year with a mass rally and a
lecture. You not only denounced apartheid at that time, but collected funds for the
liberation movements at that rally.

The struggle in South Africa goes a long way back. In my country, the Indian
National Congress has been adopting resolutions denouncing racism in South
Africa since 1894.

It has been a long struggle in South Africa and by its supporters abroad. It has
been a noble struggle. It has been a very patient struggle. It has been mostly a
non-violent struggle in this century.
-I
256

It was only after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 and after the banning
of the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress, that the two
organizations gave up their earlier adherence to total non-violence. But even when
there was resort to arms and sabotage, the greater part of the struggle
remained peaceful.

What was more non-violent than the demonstration of students in Soweto?

What was more non-violent than the march of Churchmen, two years ago,
when the students were being indiscriminately shot by what they call “birdshot”?

What is more non-violent than the strikes of African workers under the most
difficult conditions?

Many of us profess non-violence as a faith, but the test of our faith is whether we
do enough, even if that involves sacrifice, to make it possible for the non-violent
struggle to proceed.

That is the essential basis of the campaign for sanctions against South Africa.

But we do face today, an opportunity - I do share the optimism of the Chairman -

but we also face today a grave danger if we do not act.

The recent South African raid on Maseru and many other events point to the
danger.

***

I referred a little while ago to the late General Murtala Mohammed and his
tragic death.

He is but one of the many sons and daughters of Africa - many great
leaders - who have been assassinated.

Last week, it was the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Amilcar Cabral, the
great leader of the struggle for independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, a
great man and a dear friend of mine. At a very young age he was assassinated.

Eduardo Mondlane, the founder and leader of FRELIMO was assassinated in

1969. He was a colleague of mine in the United Nations and also a neigbbour. He
-I
257

was also assassinated at a very young age.

Mr. Chitepo, the leader of ZANU, before Mr. Mugabe, was assassinated, I believe
in 1973.

I can go on naming many names. These are precious leaders of the African
renaissance who have given their lives and have been gunned down.

Those who tried to stop or stem the tide of history are resorting even more
frequently and even more brazenly to the killing of leaders and the flower of the
youth.

And little is being dome by the international community to stop this brigandage.

We cannot go on any more with mere resolutions and condemnations.

We need to act to save the liberation movements, their leaders and their people.

This meeting has been called to launch a campaign for the release of Nelson
Mandela.

The Special Committee against Apartheid, very aptly, called him a "prince among
political prisoners”. Not only because he belongs to a royal family, he does, but
also because he represents, more than anyone else, the aspirations of the people of
South Africa and most of humanity.

The South African regime is determined - despite twenty years of appeals

by the entire world - that he should be separated from his people and die in
prison.

His own political life has been very short. Even before this latest imprisonment,
he had been repeatedly jailed and banned.

He has hardly had a married life.

But despite all the efforts of the South African regime, he remains the symbol of
his people, and their defiance.

He remains more powerful inside the prison walls, along with his colleagues in
exile, than the so-called black leaders who are tolerated by the regime.
-I
258

His wife is constantly harassed by the police. Only a few days ago her home was
searched, and they took away the bedspread. It seems the bedspread had the
colours of the African National Congress.

In the last few weeks his daughter, Zinzi, who goes to university in Swaziland,
was arrested twice. They claimed she had a forged passport. And when she went
to court they withdrew the charges. They did not want to proceed with the case
because they did not have a case. And, again, a second time they arrested her. I
believe she is only about 19 years old.

These are not exceptional cases. The daughter of Walter Sisulu was
studying in Lesotho. When she came home she was put in jail and tortured, and
she had to escape. There are many cases like this.

But neither Nelson Mandela, nor his organization, the African National Congress,
seek our pity. I know he could have obtained his release a long time ago - if he
was prepared to compromise. If he did not get involved in the struggle, he could
have made a fortune and lived in luxury. There are some rich blacks in South
Africa.

Way back, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo started a law practice. They are
both lawyers. They were extremely prosperous, until they left the office in the
evening, because much of their money was donated to the African National
Congress. They could have made a fortune in South Africa, but both of them
risked their lives and future because of their commitment.

But we must demand the release of Mandela, not because of pity but because his
continued imprisonment is an outrage, because there can be no peaceful solution
in South Africa without the participation of Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu
and other prisoners, and without the participation of Oliver Tambo and other
leaders in exile….

***

The Special Committee has always emphasized that it is not enough for
Governments to act, that public action is very important because apartheid is a
human problem.

Public action is important because public action today becomes governmental

-I
259

action tomorrow.

We have been in contact with the Nigerian National Committee against Apartheid
ever since its foundation in the 1960s. The first Secretary of that Committee, in
fact, happened to be a former colleague of mine in the United Nations. We follow
their activities with interest and I am very glad that the activity among the
students is being stepped up.

But I would like to emphasize that what you do here has a tremendous value not
only here, not only in terms of the small amounts of money you can contribute to
the liberation movements, or the education of the community of Nigerians outside
the university. It has a tremendous international importance. There are
anti-apartheid movements in many countries, especially in Western Europe. They
are extremely active. Many of them were established by students. Even today,
most of their activities and their demonstrations depend on students. And many
people have made sacrifices in the anti-apartheid movements, in the Western
countries, in New Zealand, in Australia, in solidarity with the African people.

I know a doctor in West Germany who works two days a week to make his living
and spends all the rest of his time working for anti-apartheid.

I know an engineer in Holland who gave up his profession and lives on almost
nothing to do this work.

I know several people who have given up their careers to work in the movement
against apartheid and I know many people who have been jailed in the movement
against apartheid. In New Zealand, only recently, 2000 people were jailed.

I know many people who have been beaten up in the demonstrations against
apartheid, in Britain, in Australia and many other countries. I am not saying this
to praise them. They are doing it out of their convictions, out of their loyalty to
the leaders and the movement in South Africa.

But they need something from you too. There are students in America
carrying on a big campaign for the last three years, against corporations, against
banks. There are anti-apartheid movements and groups which are carrying on big
campaigns in England. They go to these banks and corporations, they go to the
Governments and the press and say, "We should stop supporting South Africa."
Why? "Because it is immoral, apartheid is very bad. But it is more than that.
Africa will be very mad, because Africa said you have to choose between South
-I
260

Africa and the rest of Africa. They will be very mad." So they go to the banks,
Citibank, let's say in New York, and the bank tells them, "But Africa is not
mad. They didn't tell me in Nigeria that they were mad. We have been carrying
on business with them very well." And, very often when they want to go and tell
the public that Africa is very mad, they haven't heard from Africa. So they asked
me, please whenever you go to Africa, tell them to be mad, and be mad loud and
clear so that we can hear them in New York.

It is the same thing in Britain. When there is a company that is supplying military
equipment to South Africa, again, the Government says this is not in the
definition of arms, this is not in the law, whatever it is. So the anti-apartheid
movement goes to the Government, the Parliament members go to the
Government and say it is not even good economics, because if you send arms to
South Africa you will lose trade in the rest of Africa. Then the Government says,
that is not true, you are mistaken, we know because we hear from embassies all
over Africa.

So, I appeal to you and I am not talking to you in the context of governments.
Please, in this university and in all universities, whenever something like this
happens, please shout. Shout in such a way that you can be heard in New York
and London, not just in Kaduna state.

Friends,

South Africa, it is said, has been making a lot of reforms. One big reform they
have been making is using more hypocritical words. When I started studying
about South Africa, the Africans were called "natives ". Then, they made a reform
and started calling the Africans "Bantus". And now they call them "blacks".

Nothing has changed, except the words. But when they used to call them
natives, the notices would say “Whites only”, “Natives only”. Railway platforms
were segregated. Waiting rooms were segregated. But if you wanted to cross the
railroad track - there are bridges in Cape Town, for instance, which are also
segregated. The whites cross on this bridge and the blacks cross on that bridge. So
there used to be signs "Natives cross here". Some bright young African - because
when you are oppressed by colonialism or anything else, you like to smile, to
keep your sense of humour - wrote in between “natives” and “cross” the word
“very”. “Natives very cross here". And they have been cross. They have been
more and more cross in the last thirty years. And they are very angry today, and
they have reason to be very angry.
-I
261

But I think that we, who are abroad, have also reason to be very angry. I ask
myself now and again, have we been angry enough? As governments, as students,
as people.

Let us be angry and let us show we are angry.

Mr. Chairman,

I would like to conclude with one thought.

P. W. Botha, now the Prime Minister of South Africa, used to be the Defence
Minister. He was the man who was responsible for the invasion of Angola in
1975. Once he said, it seems privately, "If the South African army could capture
Luanda, then it could capture Lagos and even Cairo if it wanted to". You can say
he is mad. But Hitler too was mad.

Those who did not take that mad man seriously and stop him in time, were
responsible for the Second World War. Let us this time learn from history and
stop the mad men before they create a holocaust.
-I
262

SPEECH AT NATIONAL STUDENT ANTI-APARTHEID

CONVENTION, SHEFFIELD, JANUARY 18, 198655

I have come here mainly to observe your proceedings because during my many
years of work on apartheid in the United Nations, I have admired the role of the
students in the liberation struggle in South Africa and in the international
solidarity movement. The partnership between the National Union of Students
and the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Great Britain goes back many years - I
recall that the AAM had its office in the NUS building on Endsleigh Road when I
first visited it in February 1964 - and I have maintained close contact with them
since then. I am also happy at last to visit Sheffield, the first city to declare itself
an “apartheid free zone."

Student groups have pioneered in a series of campaigns over the years in support
of the struggle in South Africa and Namibia - the sports, cultural and consumer
boycotts, the campaign against bank loans to South Africa, and investments in
South Africa, the awards of honours to Nelson Mandela, to name a few.

In South Africa itself, the students have played a particularly crucial role in the
struggle and made enormous sacrifices.

This year we will be observing the tenth anniversary of the student uprising in
Soweto - a struggle with hardly any parallel - which spread all over the country
and continued for almost four years.

The students have also played a crucial role in the resistance against the racist
constitution in 1984 and the new and revolutionary stage of the struggle which
followed.

55
The Convention was organised by the National Union of Students and the Anti-Apartheid
Movement.
-I
263

When the armed forces moved into African townships since September 1984, one of their main
preoccupations was to intimidate the students and break the school boycott.

In the past few weeks, the armed forces have been mobilised to force the students and teachers at
gunpoint to resume classes and conduct examinations.

The number of students and even infants who were killed and wounded, or imprisoned and
tortured, is shocking.

Last year, especially after the proclamation of the State of Emergency, many people felt that at
last, the struggle and sacrifice of the people of South Africa will be matched by effective action
by governments.

But after announcing a few limited measures, the major Western Powers have gone back to their
discredited and disastrous policy of “constructive engagement” with the Botha regime or its
variants.

Even the few measures announced last September and October are not being implemented fully.

The position of the British Government on sanctions against South Africa is more negative than
it was before the State of Emergency. The United States is more concerned with pressure on
Angola and intervention in that country, inevitably in association with the Botha regime, than
with freedom in South Africa.

Apartheid has become untenable because of mass resistance in South Africa but it survives.

In a few days, the Botha regime will announce some more so-called “reforms” - worked out in
consultation with major Western Powers - but will escalate repression. There is also the serious
likelihood that it will resort to more extensive aggression on neighbouring countries, while
conducting a war of attrition in South Africa.

One cannot expect the liberation forces to exercise the type of extreme restraint they have shown
so far, when the people demand that the killings by the police and armed forces be avenged.

We should expect a new phase in the struggle in South Africa, and new forms of struggle.

We need to think of a new level of international action, especially in the major Western
countries.
-I
264

In that context, I think the call by the Anti-Apartheid Movement for people’s sanctions against
apartheid is very timely and important. I am sure that the student community here can and will
play a vital role in that campaign.
-I
265

SPEECH AT THE MEETING OF ANTI-APARTHEID ORGANIZATION

OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ON THE INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR
THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Rienzi Complex, Couva, Trinidad, March 21, 1986

I was more than delighted to accept the kind invitation to speak at this meeting because it gives
me an opportunity to express my great appreciation to the government, organizations and people
in Trinidad and Tobago for their great and, indeed historic, contribution to the struggle against
racist oppression in South Africa and especially for the co-operation I have received from them
during my work as the official in the United Nations in charge of action against
apartheid for over two decades.

I must first of all pay my tribute to the great leaders of Pan Africanism from Trinidad. Henry
Sylvester Williams was involved in demonstrations in London against the oppression of the
black people in South Africa and convened the first Pan African Conference in 1900 which
appealed to Queen Victoria against that oppression.

George Padmore was one of the moving spirits of the Pan African movement from the 1930s and
was particularly concerned about South Africa. He was the organizer not only of the fifth Pan
African Congress in Manchester in 1945 but also of the African People's Conference of 1958 in
Accra where the call for sanctions against South Africa was first launched.

Solidarity with the struggle against racism in South Africa began in your country and in my
country, India, long before the United Nations was established in 1945.

In April 1960, immediately after the Sharpeville massacre, the dockworkers in Trinidad refused
to handle a cargo of South African goods or to refuel the ship which carried the cargo: the
consignment of hardboard was returned to South Africa and with it went a clear message of
solidarity from the working people of Trinidad to the people of South Africa.

That was before the independence of Trinidad (August 31, 1962) and the first United Nations
resolution calling for sanctions against South Africa (November 6, 1962).

I want particularly to commend the trade unions of Trinidad for their consistent support to the
struggle against apartheid.

Trinidad became a member of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid in 1971
-I
266

and since then I have enjoyed closest co-operation of your representatives in the United Nations.
I am delighted that my good friend, Eustace Seignoret is now leading the anti-apartheid
organisation of Trinidad and Tobago - representative of all segments of the population. I am
confident that it will give a new dimension to the solidarity of the people of these islands with
the oppressed people of South Africa.

A British newspaper recently expressed surprise that a "moderate" man like Eustace was so
tough and uncompromising on the English cricket tour.

I am not in the least surprised.

In the United Nations too, he was known as a polished, gentlemanly diplomat noted for his
moderate language. But as Vice-Chairman of the Special Committee and as Chairman of its Sub-
Committee, he worked with determination and persistence to expose all collaborators with
apartheid with meticulous regard for objectivity and truth.

His work in the Special Committee was so greatly appreciated that several delegates approached
him in 1974 to accept the post of Chairman of the Committee, but he declined, insisting that the
Chairman should be an African.

After leaving the United Nations, Eustace also made an important contribution as chairman of
the Southern Africa Committee of the Commonwealth in London, especially on sanctions against
the Smith regime in Southern Rhodesia.

For someone so committed there is no retirement until the Botha regime is buried in South Africa
as the Smith regime was in Zimbabwe.

As a token of appreciation and faith in Mr. Seignoret, not only of myself but of many others in
the anti-apartheid struggle who have come to know and respect him, I would like, with your
permission, to give him a small present.

It is a "Mandela coin" produced by the anti-apartheid movement.

On one side, it has a likeness of Nelson Mandela, the symbol of resistance of the South African
people, now in his 24th year in prison.

On the other side are inscribed the words of that great leader: "The Struggle is my Life".

Now let us be a little clear about the terms "moderate" and "radical" - which our detractors often
misuse to divide us.
-I
267

If there is anyone who is prepared to compromise with apartheid and racism, if there is anyone
who is prepared to accept even the slightest racial discrimination or humiliation, he is not a
"moderate" but a traitor, a sell-out, a stooge, who has no respect for himself.

A "radical" is not someone who shouts loudest but one who goes to the root of the problem.

We need both to pull out the tree of racism from its very roots and destroy it totally.

In Trinidad and Tobago - as in India or Ghana or Nigeria - I suppose, everybody is against

apartheid. If there is any misfit who is not, we will need to engage psychiatrists to examine his
head.

Then, why is there the need for anti-apartheid organisations?

I will give you three reasons from my experience why anti-apartheid groups are necessary in
countries where governments are against apartheid.

First of all, governments have some limitations and restraints. The public can supplement their
action.

Governments cannot go into demonstrations. The people can.

The Governments may not be able to take action on all corporations which are, directly or
indirectly, sustaining apartheid. The people can boycott them.

Second, when governments take action they need public support to sustain them.

Third, anti-apartheid groups can be ahead of governments and build up public sentiment to
enable governments to take action.

Nigeria, as you know, is one of the countries most committed against apartheid. There is an anti-
apartheid committee in Nigeria, financed by the government.

Two years ago, I was in Lagos with the Nigerian Chairman of the United Nations Special
Committee against Apartheid - and he was pressing them to be more active, and go beyond the
stand of the government.

Last month, I was in Sweden to attend a people's parliament against apartheid with 1,000
delegates from 800 organizations. The government gave them a grant to cover all the costs,
-I
268

knowing very well that they would criticize the government for not doing enough and demand
more action.

In South Africa, and in Namibia, the people are mobilized as never before in the struggle for
liberation.

They are no more afraid of tear gas or guns or the torture chambers of the oppressors.

People are jailed and tortured, but as soon as they come out they are back in the struggle.

Mothers are not crying for their children - even infants who are shot dead - but pledging to
avenge.

Police cannot enter African townships without military escorts.

The regime has to call in the army to force the students and teachers to go to their classes and
hold examinations.

The ranks of the liberation movement include not only Africans, Indians and people of mixed
blood but many whites - because the struggle is not against any so-called race, but against an
inhuman system which degrades all the people.

Apartheid is doomed but not yet dead.

The apartheid regime cannot suppress the resistance but it refuses to negotiate with the leaders of
the people to establish a free and non-racial society.

It can cause a lot more suffering and a lot more deaths before it surrenders.

Some of the whites are realizing this. The leader of the Opposition in the white Parliament, a
respected Afrikaner, resigned recently accusing the regime of endangering the future of the
whites, and went to London to talk to the leaders of the liberation movement.

Many more whites will follow him - because they know that they have to live with the blacks -
except for the tragic fact that racism is encouraged by foreign interests who profit from apartheid
slavery.

The bankers in London and New York do not seem to care for the survival and security of the
whites in South Africa, so long as they can make quick profits.
-I
269

That is why we need a mobilization of people all over the world to confront those who are
helping the racists in South Africa, who are underpinning apartheid and causing the conflict to
drag on, causing enormous suffering.

When the people are mobilized, governments will act. That is why I want to speak today about
people's mobilization rather than action by governments.

You may feel that yours is a small country and you can do very little - and that what you do or do
not do may not be noticed.

But your action can have effect far beyond your shores.

Your trade unions, your churches and other religious bodies, your university and all your other
organizations and institutions have international contacts and can help to promote action inter-
nationally.

If you can print an anti-apartheid postage stamp, it can convey the message to millions of people
around the world.

Your great cricketers have fans all over the world who will listen to them.

One calypso band, one reggae band - if inspired to produce a great anti-apartheid record - will be
heard by millions of people in North America and Western Europe where we need action.

And a message from Trinidad can be particularly valuable because it comes from a multi-racial
country where not only people of African and Indian origin but people of other origins, including
whites, live together. Your country, like South Africa, is the world in miniature.

I have come here expecting to deliver a couple of lectures and go back.

But I have been impressed at the debate that is going on about apartheid, and the courage of
many people to join in the campaign against apartheid.

I have talked to many people who are outraged that the cricketers who violated the boycott of
apartheid sport, who have made money from apartheid, think they have a right to play in the
Caribbean and make money from the people here as if they have done no wrong.

I want you to imagine what it means to play cricket in South Africa now, and why we say that
apartheid is not cricket.
-I
270

Suppose you all went to watch cricket in South Africa. All the people with black skin will be in
one enclosure. All the Indians will be in one enclosure. All the people of mixed blood will be in
one enclosure - and the whites will be in another enclosure.

I was almost going to say your President will be in one enclosure, your Prime Minister in
another, your Foreign Minister in another, and the head of the Cricket Board in another - and if
you express any revulsion about the racial regime, you go to the police station.

There will be high fences between enclosures and separate toilets. That is, unless the racist
regime gives special permits and exemptions to take pictures to send abroad for propaganda and
makes you all so-called "honorary whites."

Is that not outrageous?

If Mr. Gooch does not think so, I would only pity him. But I think all of us have every right to
tell the Test and County Cricket Board - and if necessary the West Indies Cricket Board of
Control - that cricket is not hitting a ball with a bat. There is something called fair play,
something called sportsmanship.

It is more than a matter of whites and blacks playing on the same cricket field in South Africa.

When blacks are starving, when the government spends eight times on the education of a white
child than on a black child, when blacks are prohibited from the best sports grounds - how can
there be equality and non-discrimination in sport?

There can be no equality in sport until apartheid is totally abolished in all fields.

So if you believe in true sportsmanship, you belong in the anti-apartheid movement. If you love
cricket, boycott apartheid and all its collaborations.

If Mr. Gooch doesn't understand this, that is his business. The English Cricket Board and the
West Indies Cricket Board could have told him to go and play with Kallicharan on Devil's Island
- not against the team that is the pride of all the people of the Caribbean, black, white, brown,
yellow, and whatever.

But I am sure that something very good can come out of all this.

Almost twenty years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations suggested that all
countries establish national committees against apartheid. I am glad that you have now
established one. Better late than never.
-I
271

I hope that you will now discuss what has happened and decide to show to the world that
everybody in Trinidad is against apartheid.

Maybe you can have, on Soweto Day, a big anti-apartheid march - with the government and the
opposition, with the leaders of all the religions in this country, with the employers and trade
unions, with the old and young - and that at the head of the march you will have the police band
and the Minister of National Security who carries the great name of Padmore.

I would like to come back and see.

The struggle in South Africa is a great struggle and our movement of solidarity is a great
movement.

I might perhaps add that Trinidad and other West Indian nations have played an important role in
the boycott of apartheid sports. It was Trinidad which moved the first resolution of the United
Nations General Assembly calling for the boycott of apartheid sport, as long ago as in 1971.

All of us in the anti-apartheid struggle count on strong support from Trinidad in further efforts to
reinforce the boycott of apartheid sports.
-I
272

OTHER
-I
273

SOME NOTES ON SOUTH AFRICA AND THE "COLD WAR"

(1953)

At the end of the Second World War, the governments of Great Britain, France, Belgium,
Portugal, Italy and South Africa, which virtually ruled the African continent, became wholly
dependent upon financial and military aid from the United States.

With the beginning of the Cold War, the United States and these countries regarded Africa as an
indispensable military and supply base for a possible third World War, and for suppressing
national movements in the Arab World and in Asia.

Africa was also regarded, in the words of Mr. Nelson Rockefeller, as the "reserve continent of
the world."

As Dr. T. L. Donges, then Minister of Interior of South Africa, stated in 1950:

“Regarded from the point of view of Europe and America, the answer is still the same —
that Africa must be kept within that orbit. Its raw materials are the complement of the
highly industrialised Europe and America… any realistic scheme of global defence must
have as one of its main pillars the retention of Africa, together with Western Europe,
within the western constellation… A strong South Africa, coupled with a defence
scheme which embraces the defence of Africa against Communism, is the best means of
ensuring Africa’s place within her natural orbit, and thereby assuring her orderly
development.”56

South Africa became the first and favourite recipient of loans and aid. Its trade with the United
States had greatly increased during the war years as did the United States investment in South
Africa.

After the formation of NATO, the European colonial Powers began consideration of cooperation
in defence matters in African colonial territories. South Africa was brought into these
discussions.

New York Times reported on 24 September 1950 that the most important military exercises so far
held in Central Africa had ended on 23 September at Inkomo, Southern Rhodesia, in the

56
Quoted from New Africa, New York, January—February 1951
-I
274

presence of US, UK and South African observers. Problems of defence of the African continent
south of the Sahara had been studied. Integration of that defence in the over—all strategy of the
Western Powers was also considered. One purpose of the exercises at Inkomo was to familiarise
future white officers with the Negro contingents that they might have to lead in combat.

The South African Ministers of Defence and External Affairs, the Chief of the General Staff and
the Secretary for Defence went to London and held talks with the British Cabinet from 25 to 28
September 1950. They were reported to have discussed the defence of Africa and the Middle
East.57

The South African Defence Minister, Mr. Erasmus, then proceeded to France, the United States
and Portugal to discuss defence plans for South Africa.

On arriving in Lisbon, Mr. Erasmus said that the Union of South Africa would consider a
Communist attack on any point of African territory as directed against herself.58

On his return to South Africa on 14 October 1950, Mr. Erasmus said that the UK and the USA
realised the strategic importance of South Africa and were prepared to release modern equipment
for the three branches of the Union’s defence force. He said the talks he had had on the defence
of the Union and the African continent with the Governments of UK, USA, France and Portugal
were satisfactory. He had stressed the advantage of cooperation in the defence of Africa and his
views were sympathetically received.59

Shortly after, from 25 October to 16 November 1950, a conference on Central and Southern
African transport problems was held in Johannesburg.60

In August 1951, international defence talks were held in Nairobi under the sponsorship of the
United Kingdom and South Africa. At the conclusion of the conference, a brief communiqué
was issued stating that it had considered in some detail facilities required in the event of war, and
the principles which govern their application. The conference made a series of unanimous
recommendations designed to ensure the rapid movement, if required, of troops and military
supplies to the eastern and central parts of Africa. It was agreed that the Governments of South
Africa and of the UK, as convenors of the conference, should submit recommendations to the

57
New York Times, 29 September 1950
58
Brazzaville radio, 10 October 1950
59
South Africa Reports, 19 October 1950
60
Report in Department of State Bulletin, 15 January 1951
-I
275

participating Governments and consider, in consultation with them, what further action is
required to carry them out.61

The South African Government was also included in consultations in 1950 and 1951 on the
Middle East Command. The US State Department announced on 24 October 1951 that the USA
intended to establish a Middle Eastern defence command in collaboration with the UK, France,
Turkey, New Zealand, Australia and the Union of South Africa, despite Egypt’s rejection of an
invitation to join. Discussions of the new defence arrangements would include the “important
question of the relationship between the Middle Eastern command and the NATO."62

Another link at this time was South Africa’s role as the supplier of uranium.

The Atomic Energy Commission of the USA announced on 14 December 1950 that uranium to
be produced in the Union of South Africa as a by-product of gold production would be sold to
the USA and UK under an agreement concluded on that day by the three Governments.63

In January 1951, the International Bank granted a $50 million loan to South Africa, for electric
power and transport facilities, and eight private banks lent $30 million.64

In 1952, the Export—Import Bank advanced South Africa $19,600,000 for developing the
uranium processing operations.

Spotlight on Africa, a newsletter published by the Council on African Affairs in New York,
reported on 25 June 1952:

“U.S. Investments in South Africa. In 1946 a New York bank group, Ladenburg, Thalman
& Co. (reflecting Rockefeller interests) formed a big capital merger with British—South
African interests. This investment control was expanded in 1947, covering extensive
mining properties and over 100 South African industrial companies. Time magazine
described this operation as “the first big beachhead of American capital in South Africa.”
In 1948 the same U.S. interests, through the Anglo-Transvaal Consolidated Investment
Co., joined with the Texas Oil Co. in starting the manufacture of oil from coal in South
Africa.

Morgan interests occupy a dominating position in South African gold and copper mining.
Some of the mines, under the indirect control of Morgan, are engaged in processing gold

61
The Times, London, 1 September 1951
62
New York Times, 25 October 1951
63
See details of the agreement in Department of State Bulletin, 1 January 1951
64
South Africa had approached the United States in 1949 for a $50 million loan, but obtained only a $10 million
loan from private banks. A larger loan was delayed until the uranium agreement was concluded.
-I
276

ore waste for the extraction of uranium to be sent to the United States. Through the
Anglo-American Corp., a holding company, control has been acquired over more than 40
South African and Rhodesian companies, including diamond mines and new gold mining
properties in the Orange Free State.

Examples of the Morgan—controlled properties are the O’kiep Copper Co. Ltd., in South
Africa and the Tsumeb Mines in South West Africa. Direct control and development of
these properties are shared by the Newmont Mining Co. and the American Metal Co. ...”

It added:

“Our 'Free-World' Ally. The South African government, without waiting to secure
popular or even parliamentary approval, committed the country to participation in the
Korean war and in the NATO Middle East Command. The South African air squadron in
Korea was supplied U.S.—made Mustang fighters at the incredible give-away price of
$5,447 each, plus 16 per cent administration charges, a whopping reduction from the
original price set at $58,000 each (Cape Times, May 27, 1952). The South African
Minister of Defence disclosed last month that twenty modern Vampire jet aircraft, cost
not mentioned, had been secured and that thirty more would soon be available, together
with 44 Harvards and also some F-86 latest type American jets.”

It reported on 11 November 1952:

“On October 17 the Government Gazette in Pretoria announced the conclusion of an

agreement between the U.S. and S.A. governments whereby the latter is to spend $l12
million on war weapons to be obtained from America and Britain and to be used, among
other purposes, for the Union’s 'internal security.'”

While the United States made platitudinous official statements on apartheid, its policy was
determined by the fact that South Africa was a principal source of uranium and a virtual ally.
-I
277

NORDIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE STRUGGLE AGAINST

APARTHEID: ITS EVOLUTION AND SIGNIFICANCE65

Mr. Chairman,

I have been privileged - in my work in the United Nations Secretariat as the official in charge of
action against apartheid for over two decades, and even as I continue to work against apartheid
since retirement last year - to enjoy the friendship and co-operation of Nordic governments,
organisations and institutions, as well as many individuals in the Nordic countries. I appreciate
this opportunity to share some thoughts on the evolution of Nordic policies towards southern
Africa, as seen from the United Nations and by one who had grown up in a colonial country,
India, and whose outlook has been shaped by its national movement against colonialism and
racism.

I believe that the Nordic countries have made a great contribution in support of the struggle for
liberation in southern Africa and that they can and will make an even greater contribution in the
future.

I also believe that the struggle for freedom in South Africa has had a great influence on the
evolution of Nordic attitudes towards Africa, racism and international affairs - and indeed a
deeper impact on Nordic personality than is generally recognised.

I have been impressed with the evolution of understanding and support by Nordic countries for
the aspirations of Africa and I have been privileged to have made a small contribution in that
process.

I hope that you will appreciate if my account is, therefore, rather personal.

The significance of Nordic contribution

I wish to emphasise at the outset my belief that the Nordic contribution to the international
efforts for the elimination of apartheid and for the independence of colonial nations in southern
Africa has been of great significance in several respects.

65
Based on a lecture delivered at a seminar of the Scandinavian Institute for African Studies, Uppsala, on February
l9, l986
-I
278

First, in the context of the struggle against all manifestations of racism.

South Africa has been described as a microcosm of the world with people of varied racial and
national origins. The national liberation movement in South Africa has consistently espoused
non-racialism and resisted racial hostility in the face of inhuman racist oppression and violence.
While the apartheid regime holds that different racial groups cannot live together in harmony as
equals, the liberation movement has been ever more firmly uniting people of all racial origins,
including those of European ancestry, in a common struggle for a democratic State.

The main issue in the confrontation in South Africa is, therefore, of universal significance.

The fact that the Nordic countries, at the other end of the globe and seemingly the purest of the
so-called "white" nations, opposed apartheid and joined African, Asian, Caribbean and other
nations in support of the South African liberation movement helped reinforce our faith in human
solidarity.

There has always been a grave danger that the resentment of the oppressed black people in South
Africa would translate into indiscriminate violence, organised or spontaneous, against the whites.
Terrorism was never too difficult in a society where the daily humiliations of the majority arouse
intense bitterness, where black cooks and nannies serve in almost all white homes and where
arms are plentiful.

The leaders of the national liberation movement deserve enormous credit for the fact that killings
of innocent white men, women and children did not take place, except for a few isolated
instances which they could not possibly control when they were confined by brutal repression. (I
have in mind, for instance, a few incidents in 1962-63 which the regime used to fan hysteria
among the whites and escalate repression against members of the liberation movement). The
support received by the oppressed people from governments, organisations and individuals in the
West helped reinforce the courageous efforts of the leaders of the liberation struggle to avert a
racial conflict and channel the people’s anger into an organised movement for the destruction of
apartheid.

Second, in the context of the "cold war."

The struggle in South Africa has been prolonged and very difficult not only because of the bitter
legacy of racism in the country but also because of external factors - such as the eagerness of
many corporations and financial interests to profit from racism, the "kith and kin" attitudes in the
West and, above all, the short-sighted strategic calculations of some governments.

The attitudes generated by the "cold war" and McCarthyism in the United States have been most
-I
279

unfortunate. Some agencies of the United States Government appear to have concluded even in
the 1940's that the national liberation movement in South Africa was so greatly influenced or
"infiltrated" by Communists that it should be opposed and undermined rather than befriended
and supported. That assessment has tended to distort United States policy ever since.

The sharp division in the United Nations in 1961-62 on sanctions against South Africa - with all
the Western countries opposing sanctions and some even assisting the racist regime in its
enormous military build-up to resist the winds of change blowing from a resurgent Africa -
could have led to dangerous polarisation in world opinion. The regard which the governments
and peoples of Nordic States - three of which are members of NATO - began to show for the
African National Congress of South Africa and its leaders at the time, which resulted in ever-
increasing support since then, was, therefore, most heartening.

I believe the turning of southern Africa into an arena of the cold war with all its ugly
consequences and the intervention of external forces, with one or more Western Powers
colluding openly or covertly with the apartheid regime, was a greater danger than most observers
in the West have recognised.

The action of Norway in opposing any NATO involvement in southern Africa was, therefore,
extremely important - and I must acknowledge the principled position of Ordvar Nordli,
Thorvald Stoltenberg and others in this respect.

The clandestine support by CIA to the South African invasion of Angola in 1975, and the arrival
of Cuban and other troops in that country at the request of MPLA, could have led to a very
serious international crisis. Opinion in Africa and in the West was initially confused and divided.
It was only due to the statesmanship of some leaders in Africa and the West that such a crisis
was averted. The courageous and clear-sighted position of Olof Palme at that critical time, as on
several other occasions, deserves respect and recognition.

Since the advent of the Reagan administration in the United States, with its essentially cold war
approach to southern Africa, the Nordic States, along with some others in the West, have helped
counter moves to turn the issues in that region into East-West controversies, though perhaps they
could have exerted greater influence.

The Nordic countries have their differences but happily these differences have been minor in
relation to southern Africa. Sweden and Finland are non-aligned, while Denmark, Iceland and
Norway are members of NATO. But the policy of no Nordic State toward southern Africa has
been determined by the alliance relationships.

In fact, East-West conflict in southern Africa is bound to heighten tension in Europe to the
-I
280

detriment of the interests of the Nordic countries. They have, therefore, a vital interest in
resisting, along with non-aligned States, any injection of the cold war into southern Africa to
complicate the just struggle of the people for freedom and independence.

Third, as regards assistance.

The Nordic contribution against apartheid was, at first, mainly in the provision of humanitarian
and educational assistance to the victims of that inhuman system. In the United Nations, we
deliberately minimised the political significance of such assistance, partly in order not to provoke
retaliation by the Pretoria regime and partly because we did not wish to allow the major Western
Powers to provide some humanitarian assistance and pretend that they were on the right side.

I have myself always believed, however, that assistance to political prisoners and their families
in South Africa was vital for sustaining the morale of the oppressed people engaged in a
prolonged and difficult struggle for freedom. The assistance - more than half of it from the
Nordic countries - has played an indispensable role in enabling the liberation movement to
recover from the reverses of 1963-64 and take the offensive with greater strength. It has also set
an important precedent for international assistance to other oppressed peoples.

If Nordic assistance was confined to humanitarian and educational purposes, it would have been
of limited significance, and might perhaps even have degenerated into paternalism. But the
concern for political prisoners and over repression led to greater understanding of the struggles
for freedom in southern Africa and to economic, social and other assistance directly to the
liberation movements by the end of the decade.

It is invidious to argue whether sanctions against the apartheid regime or assistance to the people
struggling against apartheid is more important. They are two sides of the same coin.

The liberation movement has often said that sanctions were the best form of assistance to their
struggle. Even small countries with modest economic involvement in apartheid should disengage
from apartheid since every small step has a moral and psychological value. It is also essential to
prevent the growth of interests with a stake in apartheid in order to facilitate further action
against apartheid.

But the fact remains that only the major Powers can exert effective pressure on the apartheid
regime through sanctions, while even small countries can provide substantial assistance to meet
the modest needs of the liberation movement. Assistance, moreover, can be of crucial importance
at certain stages of the struggle.

Finally, the successive measures taken by the Nordic States in response to United Nations
-I
281

resolutions, however slow and limited, were generally in advance of action by other Western
countries. The Nordic example helped the United Nations and anti-apartheid groups in pressing
for action by those countries.

The recent measures by Nordic States, and their decision to promote similar action by other
States, are highly encouraging.

Looking at the record of international solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa, we
find that the African and Non-aligned States provide crucial political support and some material
assistance of various kinds. Their financial contributions are modest because of their poverty, but
the hidden costs borne by the host countries of refugees are very large. The frontline States have
even risked their independence and suffered enormously for their support to the liberation
struggle in South Africa.

The Socialist States have given large-scale assistance of various kinds - from scholarships to
arms - though their financial assistance is also limited because of their foreign exchange
problems.

The Nordic and other Western countries have been the principal source of humanitarian,
educational and financial assistance. The total contribution of Nordic countries for assistance to
the oppressed people of South Africa and Namibia is now in the order of $ 50 million a year,
including direct grants of well over $ 10 million to the liberation movements.

Thus the liberation movements in South Africa and Namibia receive assistance from all regions
of the world and from governments of varied ideological persuasions. I need hardly emphasise
the importance and wider significance of this.

I do not in any way wish to give the impression that the Nordic countries have done enough.
They did little by way of sanctions against South Africa between 1963 when they recognised the
need for increasing pressure against the apartheid regime and 1976 when, after the Soweto
massacre, Norway and Sweden decided to prohibit new investments in South Africa. They did
little on trade sanctions or airline boycott until 1984. Even now Nordic sanctions are partial. But
in all the countries the main barriers have been crossed and further advances are possible.

Nordic Attitudes until 1960

The problem of racial discrimination in South Africa was first brought up in the United Nations
at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946 in the form of a complaint by India that the
Union of South Africa had imposed discriminatory measures against the people of Indian origin
-I
282

in violation of bilateral agreements.

South Africa challenged the competence of the United Nations to consider the Indian complaint
and pressed for a request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. It was
Sweden, newly admitted to the United Nations, which took the initiative at that time to move a
formal proposal to refer the issue to the International Court. The Nordic countries continued for
several years to advocate such a course.

In 1947 Norway even called on India to suspend its trade embargo against South Africa as a
preliminary to talks between the two countries. In 1952, all the Nordic delegations (Finland was
not yet a member of the United Nations) expressed reservations on a clause in the resolution
calling on South Africa to suspend the implementation of the Group Areas Act which enforced
residential segregation at the cost of enormous suffering to the black people.

In 1952, the General Assembly began consideration of the wider problem of apartheid at the
request of Asian-African States. Again the Nordic States suggested requesting the International
Court for an advisory opinion on the competence of the United Nations to consider the matter.
They did not support the Asian-African resolution for a commission to study the racial situation
in South Africa.

Denmark moved an alternative resolution with a pious declaration on racial discrimination in

general. The Asian and African delegations abstained on that resolution. Both resolutions were
adopted with many abstentions.

The original Danish proposal had contained a clause declaring that the methods of Member
States for giving effect to their pledges under the Charter may vary with circumstances such as
the social structure of the States concerned and the different stages of development of the various
groups within the country. That dangerous clause was fortunately rejected in a separate vote and
deleted. Years later, we could approvingly recall the adopted text which declared that "in a multi-
racial society harmony and respect for human rights and freedoms and the peaceful development
of a unified community are best assured when patterns of legislation and practice are directed
towards ensuring equality before the law of all persons regardless of race, creed or colour and
when economic, social, cultural and political participation is on a basis of equality."

The Nordic countries did not support the work of the United Nations Commission on the Racial
Situation in South Africa which made annual reports to the General Assembly with an analysis
of the situation as well as recommendations for a peaceful solution. Their negative votes or
abstentions contributed to the disbandment of the Commission in 1955.

Thus initially the Nordic States were more concerned with legalisms and caution than with the
-I
283

substance of the issue, thereby opposing any meaningful action against apartheid and racism. In
the 1950's they became more concerned with United Nations action on human rights and
distanced themselves from the colonial Powers which continued to reject the competence of the
United Nations to take action on apartheid, but tried to follow a "middle course" of appeals to the
apartheid regime rather than condemnation of its policies.

Impact of the Sharpeville Massacre

A major change in Nordic attitudes took place with the Sharpeville massacre of March 21, 1960.

The movement for the boycott of South Africa, launched in Britain in 1959, spread widely in
Nordic countries. The trade union federations of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden called
for a boycott of South African goods from April to August 1960. The Swedish co-operative
societies pledged their support. The Norwegian dock workers refused to unload consignments of
South African goods. Students and youth played an active role in protests against apartheid;
student and youth groups were perhaps the main channels for the spread of the boycott
movement from Britain to Nordic countries. Several public figures in Nordic countries trace their
involvement in political life to the demonstrations after the Sharpeville massacre.

It is often suggested that there was greater public reaction in Nordic countries than in most other
Western countries because Nordic countries had little economic relations with South Africa. I do
not think that provides a full explanation of this important development in Nordic public life.
Lack of vested interests might have led to the absence of public interest in the situation in South
Africa. There were more public protests against apartheid in Great Britain, which had the largest
economic stake in South Africa, than in any other Western country.

One reason for the Nordic reaction was the growing public awareness of racism in South Africa
because of the efforts of people like the Reverend Gunnar Helander, a missionary in that country
until he was prohibited re-entry in the early 1950's, and Per Wastberg, writer and journalist who
visited South Africa in the late 1950's and was inspired by the freedom movement. Olof Palme
became concerned over apartheid as a student leader and Anders Thunborg after a visit to South
Africa in a sporting team in the early 1950's.

Perhaps more important was the fact that the Sharpeville massacre took place at a time when
Nordic countries had developed a spirit of solidarity with the poorer countries as evidenced by
their assistance programmes.

But while public opinion was aroused by the violence of apartheid in 1960 and public
organisations took various actions, governmental action was limited to an arms embargo and
-I
284

assistance to refugees. The Nordic governments imposed embargoes against the export of arms
to South Africa. Though these embargoes had little material effect, since they were not
traditional suppliers of arms to South Africa, they helped focus attention on the policies of major
Western Powers which announced that they would not supply arms for repression in South
Africa but increased supplies of more sophisticated military equipment, ostensibly for defence.66

Nordic governments also began humanitarian and educational assistance to refugees from South
Africa. The International University Exchange Fund, set up on the initiative of Nordic student
groups, received its first grant from the Swedish Government in 1962.

Public attention was soon diverted by the crisis in the Congo. The mission of the United Nations
Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, to South Africa in January 1961 failed to persuade the
Pretoria regime to change its policies. But his view that the most appropriate international action
was to help neighbouring African countries to establish viable non-racial societies, and influence
South African opinion by example, appears to have had a lasting effect on Nordic attitudes.
Initially this only retarded action against the apartheid regime.

All Nordic countries abstained on General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of November 6,
1962, calling on States to impose sanctions against South Africa.

The most significant development in this period was not in governmental action but in public
concern and the fact that leaders of the South African liberation movement could reach the
people in Nordic countries and establish personal contacts with many public leaders. The award
of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chief Albert J. Luthuli in December 1961 and the impressive popular
welcome he received in Oslo had a great impact on Nordic public opinion.

The respect with which the leaders of the liberation struggle have always been received in
Nordic countries and the attention with which their views were considered by many Nordic
leaders were crucial in the development of Nordic policies since then.

Initiation of Assistance Programmes and Acceptance of Principle of Sanctions

The United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid was established in 1963 and held its

66 South Africa embarked on a massive military build- up in 1960 in response to the march of freedom in Africa
and diversified its sources of supply because of the rising anti-apartheid sentiment in Britain. It was able to secure
licences and assistance for the local manufacture of arms - from Belgium for FN rifles and from France for Panhard
armoured vehicles. A large ammunition factory was established in collaboration with the Imperial Chemical
Industries of the United Kingdom. South Africa, therefore, did not need to import small arms for repression though
bans on sporting rifles inconvenienced some whites.
-I
285

first meeting on April 2, 1963. I was appointed its Principal Secretary.67

None of the Western countries accepted membership in the Special Committee - the first United
Nations body to be boycotted by the West - and were reluctant to co-operate with it in any way.

Our first task was to draw world attention to the extremely grave situation in South Africa at the
time - especially the enactment of draconian repressive laws, the detention of thousands of
people and the widespread and brutal torture of detainees to obtain information on the
underground activities of the liberation movement - and try to secure meaningful action in the
United Nations. We had to try to overcome the Western boycott since Western support was
essential for effective action.

I recall that the Nordic States were not helpful at all at first.

One of the first actions of the Special Committee was to send letters to all States requesting
information on measures taken by them in pursuance of the 1962 General Assembly resolution.
Those letters and our approaches to delegations helped obtain action by several governments.
None of the Nordic States even replied to the letters, though we received replies from other
Western countries (Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America).

But there was a change within a few months.

Because of public agitation in the Nordic countries, in particular the campaign by youth
organisations for sanctions against South Africa, the governments decided to take some action.

Per Haekkerup, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, launched a Nordic initiative on South Africa
in the General Assembly on September 25, 1963. He said that if persuasion was not sufficient to
induce the South African Government to abandon its policy of apartheid, pressure must be
gradually increased. The Security Council had appealed for an arms embargo in August and
"other steps will undoubtedly have to follow."

At the same time, he argued, the policy of sanctions alone may well defeat its own ends and
aggravate the tension in the area. It was necessary for the United Nations to make clear the

67 I was fortunate in being given an unusual degree of freedom for a civil servant, mainly because of the confidence
and convictions of Secretary-General U Thant and the Special Committee, so that I could actively contribute to the
international campaign against apartheid. I was in fact requested and encouraged by the Special Committee to
formulate proposals for action and to be associated in all consultations and actions so that there was close
identification between the Special Committee and myself.

If I refer to "we" in my remarks, it is because of that exceptional identification. The policy decisions were, of
course, the prerogative of the Secretary-General and the Special Committee.
-I
286

alternative - "a truly democratic, multiracial society of free men, with equal rights for all
individuals, irrespective of race" - and it must play a major role in the process of change of
society. It must consider how, if necessary, it can, "in a transitional period, contribute to the
maintenance of law and order and the protection of life and civil rights of all individuals."

His reference to increasing pressure on South Africa - in effect, a call for graduated sanctions -
received little attention, while his proposals for a "positive policy" aroused apprehensions among
Africans who had a very different attitude toward the United Nations peacekeeping operation in
the Congo and its involvement in moves for a political solution in that strife-torn country.68

As a result of the Nordic initiative, a United Nations Group of Experts on South Africa was
established "to examine methods of resolving the present situation in South Africa through full,
peaceful and orderly application of human rights and fundamental freedoms to all inhabitants of
the territory as a whole, regardless of race, colour or creed, and to consider what part the United
Nations might play in the achievement of that end."

Mrs. Alva Myrdal of Sweden was Chairman of that Group and I was privileged to have served as
its Secretary. I was not only greatly impressed by her intellect and tremendous energy, but
inspired by her uncompromising opposition to any manifestation of racism.

The report of the Group of Experts - which was primarily the contribution of Mrs. Myrdal and
Sir Hugh Foot - was an excellent document which, in large part, remains valid even today. It was
welcomed by the leaders of the freedom movement in South Africa and by African and other
States.

The Group concluded that "all efforts should be urgently directed to the formation of a National
Convention fully representative of all the people of South Africa". It proposed that the South
African Government be invited to send its representatives to take part in discussions under the
auspices of the United Nations on the formation of the National Convention, and that all
representative groups in South Africa be invited to communicate their views on the agenda for
the Convention. It also emphasised the need for a renewed and urgent appeal for an immediate
amnesty for opponents of apartheid.

It declared that if no satisfactory reply was received from the South African Government, by an
early date to be fixed by the Security Council, the latter "in our view, would be left with no
effective peaceful means for assisting to resolve the situation, except to apply economic

68 Mr. Haekkerup, I have no doubt, was sincere in trying to promote action by the United Nations with wide
consensus. But there had been little consultation before his statement in the General Assembly. He met with Mr.
Oliver Tambo after his statement, to allay the apprehensions.
-I
287

sanctions". It, therefore, called for an urgent examination of the logistics of sanctions.

The Group also proposed the establishment of a United Nations South African Education and
Training Programme.

The main problem in the Group was the issue of economic sanctions since the Swedish
Government was not in favour of sanctions. Mrs. Myrdal approved the Group’s recommendation
after serious reflection and with great courage.

The main recommendation of the Group for a national convention could not be endorsed by the
Security Council because of the opposition of the Conservative Government in the United
Kingdom. The Council set up an expert committee of the whole to undertake a technical and
practical study "as to the feasibility, effectiveness and implications of measures which could, as
appropriate, be taken by the Council under the Charter of the United Nations". The Committee
was divided and its report of February 1965 has never been discussed by the Security Council.

The only practical result of the Group’s report in the United Nations was the establishment of the
United Nations Educational and Training Programme for South Africans at the end of 1965.

But the work of the Group had great influence on the policy of Sweden and that of other Nordic
countries.

At the session of the General Assembly in 1965, Denmark and Sweden voted in favour of a
resolution, formulated by the Special Committee, which declared that "the situation in South
Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security", that "action under Chapter VII of
the Charter is essential in order to solve the problem of apartheid" and that "universally applied
economic sanctions are the only means of achieving a peaceful solution." Finland, Iceland and
Norway abstained.69

The next year, following consultations, all the Nordic States voted for a similar resolution.

At that time, I helped initiate the practice of consultations between the Chairman of the Special
Committee and Nordic delegations on draft resolutions on apartheid. This was helpful to the
Special Committee, which had no Western members, to secure widest support for its proposals,
and was highly appreciated by the Nordic delegations which were anxious to be seen on the right
side of the discussion on apartheid.70

69 The Swedish delegation received instructions only a few hours before the vote on the resolution in the Special
Political Committee of the General Assembly on December 7, 1965, and there was no time for Nordic consultations.

70 The Nordic States voted in favour of the Special Committee resolutions in 1966, 1967 and 1968. In 1969, the
-I
288

Assistance to the Oppressed People

Although the Nordic States were committed to sanctions by l966, they resisted any national
sanctions for ten years on the grounds that unilateral measures, in the absence of mandatory
sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, would be ineffective and serve no purpose,
and were legally difficult.

On the other hand, they greatly increased assistance to the victims of apartheid and later to the
liberation movements.

Assistance was perhaps the easier option in the domestic context, as it avoided enactment of
legislation and confrontation with economic interests but it was generous and valuable.

It was in l963 that the United Nations first decided to promote international assistance to the
political prisoners in South Africa and their families.

When I first suggested this to the officers of the Special Committee in August l963, I had
expected opposition as there was no precedent for United Nations support to those struggling,
in defiance of law and even by resort to sabotage, against the government of a Member State.
But they approved the suggestion without hesitation and secured almost unanimous endorsement
by the General Assembly.

After extensive consultations, the Special Committee sent an appeal to Member States in October
l964 for contributions to the Defence and Aid Fund in London, headed by the Reverend Canon

consultations broke down, following a change in the leadership of the Special Committee, when new provisions
were added inviting States to take a series of specific actions. The Nordic delegations abstained on the grounds that
their Governments had not had the opportunity to consider and take decisions on the proposed measures, particularly
an airline boycott of South Africa. They were distressed as it was difficult, by this time, for public opinion in their
countries to understand refusal to support resolutions against apartheid. I believe there were questions in the
Swedish Parliament.

In 1970, we initiated the practice of moving a series of resolutions on apartheid, rather than one political
resolution. In principle, one resolution would incorporate all the demands of the African, Non-aligned and Socialist
States, while others would deal with partial measures or specific campaigns on which unanimous or near unanimous
votes, or at least the support of Nordic and some other Western States, could be obtained. Subsequently, the Nordic
delegations were persuaded not only to support but even to move some resolutions.

This practice helped greatly in securing ever wider consensus on many aspects of action against apartheid. If the
Nordic delegations enjoyed a somewhat privileged status, they helped in persuading other smaller Western States to
co-operate. When adequate consultations could not take place, however, this procedure tended to weaken the
process of negotiation and persuasion: any proposals which involved differences of opinion could be merely
transferred to the "controversial" resolution.
-I
289

L. John Collins, and other voluntary non-governmental agencies engaged in assistance to victims
of apartheid and refugees from South Africa. India had agreed at my request to make a
contribution of $ 5,000 to the Defence and Aid Fund. I did not entertain much hope of a wide
response from governments. I felt that United Nations endorsement of assistance to the prisoners
and their families would help Canon Collins in his efforts to obtain funds from non-
governmental sources.

I wrote a personal letter to Mrs. Myrdal suggesting a contribution by Sweden. Canon Collins
also approached the Swedish Government.

We were most pleasantly surprised in January l965 when Sweden announced a contribution of $
100,000 to the Defence and Aid Fund and $ 100,000 to the World Council of Churches. The
Netherlands, Pakistan and Denmark followed in June, Greece in July and the Philippines in
August.

In order to secure contributions from a larger number of governments - especially those which do
not normally contribute to non-governmental agencies - the Special Committee proposed in 1965
the establishment of a United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. At our request, Ambassador
Sverker C. Astrom of Sweden seconded the resolution in the General Assembly which was
moved by Nigeria. Since the establishment of the Trust Fund, the Swedish ambassador has
always been Chairman of its Committee of Trustees, and Sweden has helped greatly in
promoting the Fund.71

Soon after the inception of the Trust Fund, we faced a serious crisis with the banning of the
South African Defence and Aid Fund on March l8, l966. Ambassador Astrom and Mr. Palmlund
met me soon after I arrived in Sweden a month later to attend a seminar. They were greatly
concerned about the ban: Ambassador Astrom discussed the matter with Canon Collins in
London a few days earlier. I enquired if the Swedish Government could possibly consider a
confidential contribution to the Defence and Aid Fund to enable it to function until we could find
ways to overcome the serious problems arising from the ban.

The next day, I called on Mrs. Lindstrom, then Minister, and she agreed without hesitation and a
contribution was sent very soon. That prompt decision was most helpful in ensuring the survival
of a most important activity in support of the freedom movement.

The Nordic countries have accounted for about 60 percent of the contributions to the Trust

71 While the main political committee on apartheid was always under African leadership, Sweden was the chairman
of this committee and Norway has been chairman of the Advisory Committee on the United Nations Educational
and Training Programme for Southern Africa in recent years. This has helped Nordic-African co-operation in action
against apartheid.
-I
290

Fund.72

The Nordic countries have also been the principal contributors to the United Nations Educational
and Training Programme for South Africans, since its inception in l965.73

In 1968, the Special Committee against Apartheid held a special session in Stockholm, in the
Parliament building, with the participation of public leaders from all Nordic countries, and
invited Oliver Tambo, then Acting President of the ANC, and the Reverend Canon L. John
Collins, President of the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, to attend.

It indicated that one of the purposes of the session was to express appreciation to the Nordic
countries. There was by then much common ground between the Special Committee and the
Nordic countries which were described by the Chairman of the Committee as "allies".74

The agenda of the session laid emphasis on assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa
and the role of public opinion in the struggle against apartheid.

Anxious to obtain some concrete results from the session, I approached Sweden informally about
the possibility of establishing a memorial for Chief Albert J. Luthuli, who had died a year earlier.
Soon after, we learnt that the ANC was planning the establishment of a Luthuli Memorial
Foundation and I enquired if Sweden could consider announcing a contribution.

72 When Nordic countries began greatly increasing their contributions to the Trust Fund in the l960's, I suggested
that disproportionately large contributions by them to the United Nations funds was not desirable for various reasons
and that they should consider sending a greater part of their contributions directly to the Defence and Aid Fund. If
the direct contributions are taken into account, their share of assistance would be considerably higher than 60
percent.

73 This Programme was consolidated with other programmes in l967 as the United Nations Educational and
Training Programme for Southern Africa.

I recall that at the inception of the programme for South Africans in l965, the Secretary-General had, at my
suggestion, requested the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom and the United States to contribute a total of
$250,000 for the year to meet emergency needs as the academic year had already begun in most countries. We did
not receive any response from the Nordic countries for several weeks and I heard that they suspected that someone
in the Secretariat was undermining the programme by making it too modest. When I explained the situation in a
personal letter to Mrs. Myrdal, the checks were immediately delivered.

The Nordic governments at that time wanted to channel all assistance for education and training through the
United Nations because of their strong support to multilateral aid. I helped persuade them to continue support to
non-governmental agencies.

74 The session was to us very interesting for several reasons, particularly the personal contacts we could establish
with many Nordic leaders. The Swedish Foreign Ministry helped arrange meetings for us with the leaders of all the
major political parties in Sweden.
-I
291

The United Nations assistance funds at that time were strictly for humanitarian and educational
purposes. The General Assembly had appealed for assistance to liberation movements but no
Western government was yet prepared to make grants to the liberation movements, though the
Socialist Parties gave modest contributions to the ANC. I felt that the proposed Foundation could
be a channel for assistance for certain specific purposes as a first step toward direct assistance to
the liberation movements.

At my suggestion, a private meeting was arranged in Stockholm on June l6, l968, on the eve of
the special session of the Special Committee, at the home of Per Wastberg, to consult with Mr.
Tambo and Canon Collins on all aspects of assistance. It was attended by:

Sverker C. Astrom (Sweden), Chairman of the

Committee of Trustees of the United Nations
Trust Fund for South Africa

Achkar Marof (Guinea), Chairman of the Special

Committee

Edwin O. Ogbu (Nigeria), Vice-Chairman of the

Committee of Trustees

During the discussion, Mr. Tambo explained that he visualised the Luthuli Memorial Foundation
as non-partisan, with objectives as broad as the contribution of Chief Luthuli.

At the closing session of the Special Committee, Ambassador Sverker C. Astrom announced on
behalf of the Swedish Government that it would consider a contribution to the Foundation when
it was established. Ambassador Marof went to Copenhagen from Stockholm and obtained a
similar pledge from the Danish Government.

Meanwhile, Mr. Tambo, in his main address to the Special Committee, stressed the importance
of direct assistance to the liberation movement "because in the final analysis, it is the liberation
movement, the people of South Africa acting politically, that will destroy apartheid."

Mr. Tambo was a guest of the Social Democratic Party during his stay in Stockholm. He was
received by Prime Minister Erlander and was invited to address the congress of the Social
Democratic Party. He was able to take up the question of assistance to the liberation movement
with the leaders of the ruling party.

Within a few months, Sweden, with Olof Palme as the new Prime Minister, decided to give
direct grants to African liberation movements for economic and social projects. The assistance
-I
292

was initially given to the movements in the Portuguese territories which had to meet urgent
needs in liberated areas. Unfortunately, because of some developments, the ANC did not benefit
for several years.

I went to Addis Ababa on a personal visit in l970 to consult with the Secretary-General of the
OAU, Diallo Telli, and the Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mohamed Sahnoun,
on means to promote assistance to liberation movements from other Western countries. I
suggested that the OAU consider the establishment of a special fund - distinct from the Africa
Liberation Fund - for non-military assistance to liberation movements so that governments which
could not directly assist liberation movements could contribute.

The OAU Assistance Fund for the Struggle against Colonialism and Apartheid was set up soon
after and endorsed by the Special Committee and the United Nations General Assembly. At my
suggestion and with the encouragement of the OAU, Sweden moved a resolution in the General
Assembly appealing for assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa "in their legitimate
struggle against apartheid."

Ambassador Sahnoun felt that an international conference would be useful to promote assistance.
Norway agreed to host the conference and the arrangements were discussed by Arne Arneson of
Norway with Mohamed Sahnoun, Amilcar Cabral and others during the Summit Conference of
the OAU in Rabat in l972. The United Nations General Assembly endorsed the proposal of the
OAU and the International Conference of Experts for the Support of Victims of Colonialism and
Apartheid in Southern Africa was held in Oslo from April 9 to l4, l973.

Mohamed Sahnoun played a key role as Political Secretary of the Conference. I was secretary of
the Commission on assistance.75

The Conference had a great impact because of the presence of the leaders of African liberation
movements, the great respect with which they were treated, and the opportunity they had to meet
Nordic leaders and organisations. The focus of attention was more on political action than on
assistance and the main result of the Conference was in promoting recognition of the status of the
liberation movements by the United Nations and the international community.

It led to no sanctions by the Nordic countries against South Africa, though the Conference
stressed the importance of sanctions, but resulted in greater political and material support by
Nordic governments to the African liberation movements.

75 I will not go into some difficulties we encountered with the change of government in Norway and the somewhat
discouraging atmosphere with the rise of no-tax movements in some Nordic countries.
-I
293

Already substantial assistance was being given by Nordic countries directly to FRELIMO,
PAIGC and MPLA in the Portuguese territories, but the assistance in the case of South Africa
(and even Namibia) was almost wholly humanitarian and educational, channelled through the
United Nations and non-governmental agencies.

I was concerned, along with several others, in finding means to secure assistance to the struggle
against apartheid, rather than merely to the victims of that system.

Shortly before the Conference, there had been an upsurge of black workers in South Africa and
Namibia. The "black consciousness movement" provided a framework for resurgence of political
action by several segments of the population, and the ANC underground had recovered.

I had hoped that the liberation movements could set up a fund, with eminent trustees, to receive
contributions from governments and organisations, and channel them confidentially to support
resistance in South Africa and Namibia, as well as areas under Portuguese control in Angola and
Mozambique. But the liberation movements did not act quickly on my suggestion. The
International University Exchange Fund, which had been acting as a channel for assistance for
education inside and outside the territories, was permitted to use part of the grants from the
Nordic governments for political purposes.

The IUEF had to be dissolved some years later when it was found to have been infiltrated by the
South African Security Branch and when financial and other irregularities came to light.

Fortunately, in the meantime, Sweden had begun grants to the ANC and SWAPO and other
Nordic countries were moving in that direction.

The amount of humanitarian and educational assistance to South Africans and Namibians, as
well as direct assistance to their liberation movements, increased year by year.

After the independence of the Portuguese territories, more funds could be allocated to South
Africa and Namibia. The contributions of Norway greatly increased with the development of oil
production and increase in revenues. The Norwegian Government decided in l977 to provide
direct assistance to the South African liberation movements.

The Nordic contributions to South Africa and Namibia continued to increase even when there
were changes of government or economic difficulties.

Resistance to Sanctions until Soweto Massacre

-I
294

The great increase in Nordic assistance to southern Africa seems to have led, to some extent, to a
weakening of public action against apartheid and pressure for national measures against the
apartheid regime by way of sanctions.

There was little incentive for public collections for the liberation struggles when governments
could be persuaded with little effort to increase their contributions. Many of the leaders of the
boycott movement devoted their efforts to promoting assistance by governments or contacts
between governments and liberation movements.76

Whatever the reasons, there seems to have been a decline in public action against apartheid in the
Nordic countries between l963 and l976.

Boycotts of South African goods by dockworkers stopped when employers began to take legal
action against the unions. Boycotts by co-operatives and the public eroded. There were hardly
any demonstrations against apartheid for many years except for protests against South African
sports teams - in Oslo and Lund, for instance.

In our missions to the Nordic countries and in contacts with the Nordic delegations at the United
Nations, we appealed for some sanctions, even very limited, but we were always told that
national measures would be ineffective and difficult. The governments claimed that they
discouraged investments in South Africa, but investments and trade began to grow in the absence
of governmental action. We could get no action even on the sports boycott: the Nordic
governments insisted that they had no control over their sports organisations and could not take
any action.

I must confess that I did not feel that national sanctions by the Nordic countries alone would
have much effect. I did not press them, for instance, to terminate their diplomatic and consular
relations with South Africa. We avoided publicising of Nordic relations with South Africa, for
fear of enabling the apartheid regime and its main collaborators to discredit the international

76 There were no doubt other reasons for the waning of the Boycott South Africa movement.

For several years, public interest was focussed on the Vietnam war and later, to a lesser extent, on Portuguese
territories where armed struggles were taking place. In South Africa itself, the main development seemed to be the
increasing ruthlessness of the apartheid regime rather than large-scale resistance by the oppressed people.

I recall that at the session of the Special Committee in Stockholm in June l968, Hans Tabor of Denmark said that
in Scandinavian countries the people, especially the younger generation, would become preoccupied with South
Africa only if the African people showed greater "fighting spirit" - particularly in an armed struggle. The oppressed
people were being advised by Nordic friends to be both peaceful and violent!

See also Sven Skomund, "Scandinavian Opposition to Apartheid." United Nations Centre against Apartheid,
Notes and Documents, No. 25/70, October l970.
-I
295

campaign against apartheid. I felt that the most useful role of Nordic countries would be in
persuading other Western countries to move forward in action against apartheid. But there was
little progress in that direction.

I must, however, make reference to two significant developments in this period.

The action of the Swedish Government in pressing ASEA to withdraw from involvement in the
construction of the Cabora Bassa dam in Mozambique set a precedent.

In l973, the Norwegian Government decided, against the recommendation of the defence
establishment, not to purchase the Cactus missile developed in France with South African
financial assistance. This decision followed approaches by friendly African Governments. The
Special Committee also made confidential representations.

Soweto Massacre and the Nordic Programme of Action against South Africa

After the Soweto massacre of l976, Norway decided to prohibit new investments in South Africa.

Sweden took the initiative of moving a resolution in the General Assembly urging the Security
Council to consider steps to achieve a cessation of further foreign investments. There was at first
considerable resistance by African and Non-aligned States to this proposal but they were
persuaded to support and even co-sponsor it.

The resolution was widened the next year to include financial loans and moved annually for
several years.

The Swedish investment law was adopted in l979 prohibiting new investments in South Africa.

Meanwhile, the Special Committee organised in Lagos, in August l977, the World Conference
for Action against Apartheid - under the sponsorship of the United Nations in co-operation with
the OAU and the Federal Republic of Nigeria - in the hope of securing meaningful progress in
action against apartheid. The world reaction to the Soweto massacre and the national upsurge
which followed, the advent of the Carter administration in the United States and the strong
commitment of the Nigerian Government, we hoped, would facilitate action by consensus.

The Chairman of the Special Committee, Ambassador Leslie O. Harriman of Nigeria, and I
consulted Nordic governments on all preparations for the Conference. The Nordic governments
were represented at a high level at the Conference. Ordvar Nordli, Prime Minister of Norway,
and Olof Palme, then Leader of Opposition in Sweden, attended as special guests. (Sweden was
-I
296

represented by Ola Ullstein, leader of the Liberal Party, who was to become Prime Minister).
The Nordic delegations helped in ensuring the success of the Conference and, I believe, gave
serious consideration to its declaration.

Two and a half months after the Conference, the United Nations Security Council decided on a
mandatory arms embargo against South Africa - in resolution 4l8 of November 4, l977. The
Nordic countries were among the first to take legislative action to implement the embargo.

On March l0, l978, the Nordic Foreign Ministers decided on a joint programme of action against
apartheid, which included the following:

"1. Prohibition or discouragement of new investments in South Africa;

"2. Negotiation with Nordic enterprises with a view to restricting their production in
South Africa;

"3. Recommendation that contacts with the apartheid regime in South Africa in the
field of sport and culture be discontinued;

"4. Increased Nordic support to refugees, liberation movements, victims of apartheid

etc."

For the first time, there was a small breakthrough on sanctions as all Nordic countries undertook
to take unilateral measures.

The measures agreed upon may be criticised again as easy options, since the main economic
measure was on new investments. Nordic investments in South Africa were rather small and
there had been no Nordic loans to South Africa.

In Norway, the action was hardly noticed as there was little investment in South Africa and the
prohibition of new investments was through currency control. In Sweden, however, there was a
public debate as some Swedish companies had sizeable investments and the prohibition of new
investments was by legislation. This debate highlighted the important role of investments in
reinforcing apartheid. The Special Committee warmly welcomed the action of Norway and
Sweden, but it was unable to persuade other Western countries to take even such limited
measures for several years.

The Nordic countries acceded to the request of the Special Committee to terminate visa-free
privileges to South Africans and that helped greatly in promoting the sports and cultural boycott
of South Africa.
-I
297

he Soweto massacre and other developments also helped revive public action against apartheid in
Nordic countries. The trade unions, solidarity organisations and others began to develop
activities to educate the public on the struggle in South Africa and to press governments for
further action.

When the South African regime used Danish ships and the Copenhagen airport to breach the
arms embargo and Norwegian ships to obtain oil (perhaps deliberately to discredit the Nordic
countries), when Danish electric companies began to import South African coal and when
Swedish companies tried to bypass the investment law, there was wide public concern and
debate.

I must also make special mention of the contribution of Olof Palme who, in opposition from
1976 to 1982, was able to pay greater attention to southern Africa. In Sweden under his
leadership, the Social Democratic Party pressed for the strengthening of the investment law and
for other measures against the apartheid regime. He also played a leading role in the Socialist
International in promoting greater action in support of the liberation struggles in southern Africa.

With the advent of the Reagan administration in the United States, we faced a great reverse for
international action against apartheid. I was concerned not only that the United States would
oppose such action and relax its own very limited measures against the South African regime,
but also that it would press its Western allies to resist any further action.

The United Nations organised the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa in
Paris in May 198l, to press the campaign for sanctions. The Conference had been decided in
l979. With the change in the United States administration, I was anxious that it should, above all,
help consolidate the advances which had been achieved as regards support for sanctions among
Western States.

The Conference had a greater impact than we had expected, mainly because of the coming to
power of a Socialist Government in France a few days before it opened.

The Nordic countries played an active role in the Conference and it ended with a positive
declaration adopted by consensus. But there was little governmental action by Nordic countries
after the conference, except for the appointment of a commission in Sweden to make proposals
for further action and the abortive Norwegian initiative on the oil embargo.77

77 The Norwegian Government was under some public pressure at the time because of disclosures that Norwegian
ships were heavily involved in the transport of oil to South Africa. It had taken action to prevent Norwegian oil from
being shipped to South Africa but was reluctant to take any action against shipping companies
transporting oil from other sources. It formulated a proposal that the oil-exporting countries
-I
298

The Nordic countries were committed to sanctions against South Africa and support to the
liberation movements, and were therefore basically opposed to the United States policy of
"constructive engagement". But they were reluctant to criticise the United States and publicly
dissociate themselves from its policy.

With the disastrous policy of the Reagan administration, supported in part by the United
Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, the crisis in the OAU and the reluctance of the
smaller Western countries to take concerted action to stop the drift, the South African regime
was able to pursue its "total strategy", bringing about a serious crisis in the entire region.

A New Level of Nordic Action since l984

By March l984, the South African regime was able to oblige Mozambique to sign the "Nkomati
Accord" and all frontline States were under extreme pressure. It was proceeding to bring into
force a new racist constitution, excluding the African majority, as a major step to consolidate
apartheid. The United States welcomed these moves as a combination of "reform" in the country
and a "peace process" in the region. Prime Minister P.W. Botha planned a visit to European
capitals to break through the isolation. Apartheid was on the offensive.

But, in fact, a growing political and economic crisis was developing in South Africa even while
many commentators abroad were predicting the virtual demise of the ANC. The move for a new
racist constitution had provoked widest opposition from the black majority and led to the
formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF) to resist it. The UDF was to grow into the
largest mass movement in South Africa's history.

On April 2, l984, Olof Palme, then on a brief visit to New York, received General J.N. Garba,
the newly-elected Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, and myself. His
assessment of the situation in southern Africa fully coincided with ours. He was aware that
despite the weakening of the frontline States, resistance in South Africa was growing. He had
recently spoken to Oliver Tambo who had briefed him on the growth of the movement inside
South Africa. He told us that Sweden would not only assist the frontline States in their difficult
time, but would provide all appropriate assistance to the UDF. This assistance was one of the
factors which soon turned the tide and forced apartheid into the defensive.

should co-operate in arrangements to prevent their oil from going to South Africa.

Consultations on the proposal were held at the Paris Conference and were followed by a General Assembly
resolution for a conference on the oil embargo, but the initiative which we hoped could lead to significant
international action, proved abortive.
-I
299

The mass protest demonstrations during Botha's visit to Europe in May-June 1984 frustrated his
hopes to regain respectability. The meeting of Nordic and frontline State Foreign Ministers in
Stockholm in June, following the frontline State summit in Arusha in April, helped restore
morale in the region.78 The overwhelming boycott of elections to the Coloured and Indian
chambers of "Parliament" in South Africa in August was a major blow to the apartheid regime
and United States policy.

A massive upsurge of national resistance began in South Africa on September 3, l984, when the
new constitution was brought into force. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Bishop Desmond
Tutu helped secure world attention to the situation in South Africa and also to encourage greater
support by Norway to the struggle in that country.

In September l984, I was privileged to attend the Conference on Southern Africa, convened by
the Socialist International and the Socialist Group of the European Parliament in co-operation
with the frontline States, ANC and SWAPO. The analyses and comments of the African and
European leaders and their discussions were most enlightening and the two communiqués of the
conference were very encouraging.

It occurred to me that an initiative by friendly Western States in the United Nations - in the light
of those communiqués and the conclusions of the Nordic and frontline States in June - was
perhaps feasible and would be most helpful not only in countering the approach of the United
States, but also in promoting action by Western countries. I had always felt that apartheid should
be treated as international, rather than primarily an African, concern and that co-operation by
governments of all regions was essential in persuading the major Western Powers, particularly
the United States, to abandon their disastrous policies towards southern Africa.

I had in mind a resolution which would denounce the propaganda that the Botha regime was
engaged in a reform and peace process; affirm the strategy of isolation of the apartheid regime
and support to the liberation struggle; call for effective mandatory sanctions against South
Africa; and urge national measures by all States, pending mandatory sanctions, so as to break the
impasse.

My suggestion was welcomed by the Nordic delegations at the United Nations and by the

78 The tradition of meetings between Nordic and Frontline States had begun a few years earlier.

In 1979, Abdul Minty and I felt that a high-level meeting of Nordic and Frontline States would be useful to
promote action against apartheid, especially the implementation of the arms embargo against South Africa. We
contacted the governments concerned informally. Sweden then took the initiative and convened the first meeting in
New York at the beginning of the United Nations General Assembly session in September 1980.
-I
300

Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid. General Garba and I went to the Nordic
capitals where high-level consultations were arranged. All the governments were happy to be
associated with African States on this initiative. A resolution on "concerted international action
for the elimination of apartheid" was worked out in intensive consultations among Nordic and
Non-aligned States and South African liberation movements (ANC and PAC) and received
enthusiastic support from several Western governments. It was moved by the Swedish
ambassador, Anders Ferm, with the co-sponsorship of several other Western delegations and
Non-aligned States, and adopted by an overwhelming majority.

That initiative proved most timely. It helped initiate a process of national sanctions in the
Western countries which developed on a much wider scale after the South African raid on
Botswana in June l985 and the imposition of the State of Emergency in South Africa in July.
Equally important, I believe, the Nordic countries felt an obligation not only to take action but to
promote action by other Western countries.

In October l985, the Nordic Foreign Ministers adopted a new programme of action against South
Africa. It was particularly significant in that it included agreement on some trade sanctions
against South Africa.

I will not try to review the actions taken by Nordic countries since l984 - on the initiative of
governments or Parliaments, or as a result of increased public activity in support of the liberation
struggles in South Africa and Namibia - but would only stress that they not only represent a new
level of commitment for African freedom but call for new thinking on the logical conclusion of
the actions taken.

Since the Nordic countries now support the liberation struggles in South Africa and Namibia and
are enforcing some sanctions against South Africa, they cannot logically continue to treat the
apartheid regime as a legitimate government. Some of the differences they have had with African
States on formulations in United Nations resolutions will need to vanish. Apartheid cannot be
eliminated without eliminating the apartheid regime. The objective cannot be merely to
demonstrate opposition to apartheid but to help actively in efforts to destroy that inhuman system
and promote a non-racial democratic society in South Africa, as well as the genuine
independence of Namibia.

With such an approach, the Nordic States will find that GATT is no insuperable obstacle to
terminating all economic relations with South Africa. They will see the need to point to the
disastrous consequences of the policies of the major Western Powers and make active efforts to
secure total Western disengagement from apartheid.

They will then become fully identified with the African and non-aligned States in this crucial
-I
301

stage of the struggle for the emancipation of Africa, the total elimination of colonialism and the
destruction of the most blatant system of racism.

Wider Significance

I hope that this rather lengthy, yet sketchy, review has shown the great change in Nordic attitudes
and actions towards southern Africa over the years and indicated the contribution by the UN in
promoting that change. I have also tried to draw attention to the role of public opinion, and of
members of Parliament, in promoting governmental action.

My own experience has been that the Nordic governments pay serious attention to United
Nations resolutions which they vote for, especially if they had participated in formulating them.
They have always responded positively to all new initiatives which were launched after full
consultation with them. I hope that African and Non-aligned States will continue to consult them
as friends on all new initiatives.

I have tried to stress the great advance in Nordic attitudes towards the South African freedom
struggle. I believe that it is possible, by determined effort, to secure much greater co-operation
from other Western States as well on action for the elimination of apartheid. Such an effort is
particularly crucial at the present time.

I have often wondered whether the gap between the attitudes of Western and Non-aligned
nations toward action against apartheid can ever be closed, because that has wider implications
for the prospects of international co-operation.

Let me explain.

Forty years ago, in June l946, the Government of India imposed sanctions against South Africa.
The action was taken by the British administration - before India’s independence - because of the
strong public sentiment in the country.

South Africa accounted at the time for five percent of India's exports and one and a half percent
of India’s imports. The termination of this trade was a serious matter for one of the poorest
countries of the world which was confronted with serious economic problems at the end of the
war. But there has never been any opposition in India to those sanctions - or subsequent
additional measures - because the national honour of the country was at stake and because of the
international outlook nurtured by Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru.

A decade and a half later, newly-independent African States, Caribbean nations and others
-I
302

imposed sanctions against South Africa when the apartheid regime proved immune to all
appeals. The sanctions involved considerable sacrifices, especially for former British colonies
like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Tanganyika. But there was full public support, because
humiliation of people for their black skin was considered an affront to all of Africa and to all
people of African origin.

But there has been tremendous resistance to sanctions against apartheid by Western countries,
though South Africa accounts for less than one percent of the trade of those countries. They do
not seem to recognise that apartheid is as much a problem of the whites as of the blacks.

Asian-African countries which led in action against apartheid even suffered from the hostility of
Western States deeply involved in South Africa. Apartheid inevitably led to confrontation
between them and the major Western Powers which not only opposed meaningful action against
the apartheid regime but enabled it to become a menace to emerging African States while
constantly increasing their stake in that inhuman system.

Sentiment in the world as regards human rights has not yet overcome the "kith and kin" spirit
and the passions of inter-State conflicts which are often manipulated by governments into
aggressive frenzy. Can we look forward to the day when human solidarity is universal?

The Nordic countries have come a long way. Perhaps it was not unfortunate that they have taken
long - because easy decisions without public debate and education do not have deep and lasting
effect. The growing concern over apartheid has, I believe, also contributed to the development of
the global outlook of the Nordic countries and their closer relations with Africa and the Non-
aligned world.

I would like to view the growing international solidarity against apartheid not merely as support
to the just aspirations of the oppressed peoples of South Africa and Namibia, but as part of a
wider movement towards a "one world." The Nordic countries have made a significant
contribution by leading the way in the West: they can and must do much more.